Bidgood, Jessica

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 Article 35 1-1-2011 Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Ore. 2010) Jessica Bidgood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Jessica Bidgood, Court Report, Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Ore. 2010), 14 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 462 (2011). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. WATER LAWREVIEWOREGONKlamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Ore.2010) (answering certified questions arising from a dispute over waterrights in the Klamath Basin and concluding Oregon state law does notpreclude acquiring an equitable or beneficial property interest in awater right held by the United States and, once acquired, the equitableor beneficial property interest is not subject to state water rightsadjudication).The Oregon Supreme Court accepted three certified questionsfrom the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitconcerning a dispute over water rights in the Klamath Basin. Beforeanswering the questions, the court first outlined the proceduralposture of the dispute and discussed the common law and statutorycontext of the Oregon statute in dispute.Plaintiffs ("Klamath users") are farmers and irrigation districts thatuse water from the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project, whichstores and supplies water in the Klamath Basin. In 2001, droughtconditions forced the Bureau of Reclamation to withhold the deliveryof water to the Klamath Basin users to ensure water was available forthree endangered fish species. Klamath Irrigation District claimed aproperty right to the water and brought an action in the United StatesCourt of Federal Claims alleging a Fifth Amendment taking andbreach of contract. Assuming the United States holds legal title to thewater rights, the claim was solely for the taking of an equitable orbeneficial interest in the water rights. The Court of Federal Claimsheld that federal law did not define the scope of an equitable orbeneficial water right and the state law did not allow a propertyinterest without written consent from the United States; therefore, thecourt granted summary judgment for the United States.On appeal, the Federal Circuit stated that the takings issuedepended upon Oregon property law and certified three state lawquestions to the Oregon Supreme Court. In answering the questions,the court considered a 1905 Oregon statute: Oregon General Laws,Chapter 228, section 2 ("the Statute"). In addition, the court assumedthat the United States held legal title to the water rights.The first certified question asked whether the Statute precludedthe landowners and irrigation districts from acquiring a beneficial orequitable property interest in the water right acquired by the UnitedStates. The court found that the Statute did not preclude the Klamathusers from acquiring a beneficial or equitable property interest held bythe United States. The Statute stated that the United Statesappropriated water that was not under the control of the state.However, the court determined that the term "appropriation," as usedby the state legislature, did not express an intent to preclude abeneficial or equitable property interest in the appropriated right.Additionally, the Oregon legislature enacted the Statute in response tothe Reclamation Act of 1902, and the court found that the state462 Volume 14COURT REPORTSlegislature authorized the United States to appropriate water underthe Statute for the benefit of those users who would put the water to abeneficial use. Therefore, the court held that the Statute did notintend to preclude the Klamath users from acquiring a beneficial orequitable property interest held by the United States.The second question asked whether the beneficial water use bylandowners and irrigation districts was sufficient to grant a beneficialor equitable property interest in the water. right legally held by theUnited States. The court found that while a beneficial use alone isinsufficient, there are three factors persuasive for determining whetherthe Klamath users acquired a beneficial or equitable property interest.The first factor was whether the beneficial use resulted in the waterbecoming appurtenant to the land. The second factor the courtconsidered was whether the United States acquired the water right forthe benefit and use of the Klamath users. Analyzing these two factors,the court found that the Klamath users had acquired a sufficientlybeneficial or equitable property interest in the United States' waterright because the Klamath users put the water to beneficial use byapplying it to their land. Addressing the third factor, the courtconsidered whether any contractual agreements between the UnitedStates and the Klamath users would change the relationship. Here,the court declined to give an answer because it did not have access toall the necessary documentation of contractual agreements.The third question asked whether Oregon state law recognized anylegal or equitable property interest in the use of water in the KlamathBasin that was not subject to adjudication with exceptions for pre-1909surface water appropriation and previously adjudicated rights. Thecourt first looked to the Oregon Revised Statute section 539.210("adjudication statute") which governs the adjudication of pre-1909water rights. The adjudication statute requires that all claimants to awater right appear for adjudication. According to the court, thestatutory context of the term "claimant" refers to a person who hasappropriated a water right or who has legal title to a water right. Thecourt found that by seeking only beneficial or equitable propertyrights, the Klamath users were not "claimants" under the adjudicationstatute who would be required to appear for adjudication of the right.The court held that the beneficial or equitable property interests in awater right legally owned by another are not subject to state waterrights adjudication.In conclusion, the court answered the three certified questionspresented by the Federal Circuit and found that Oregon state law doesnot preclude acquiring an equitable or beneficial property interest in awater right held by the United States and that interest is not subject tostate water rights adjudication.Jessica BidgoodIssue 2 463

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Ore. 2010)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=wlr

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Ore. 2010)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver