Case Explained: YUROK TRIBE, ET AL V. KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ET AL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 3:19-cv- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) applies to the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the Klamath Project. The court held that Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA mandates consultation for any “agency action” authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency to ensure it does not jeopardize endangered species. Relying on controlling precedent *Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson*, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), the panel rejected arguments that recent Supreme Court and circuit decisions, specifically *National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife* and *Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Haaland*, rendered *Patterson* obsolete or inapplicable. The court distinguished those cases by noting they addressed non-discretionary statutory mandates or specific contract terms regarding the reinitiation of consultation, whereas the Reclamation Act provides broad authority to the Bureau rather than a specific non-discretionary command conflicting with the ESA. Furthermore, the court found that the water contracts at issue contain shortage provisions that do not eliminate the Bureau’s discretion to manage water levels for species protection, as unavailability due to legal mandates constitutes a shortage excusing performance but does not preclude the agency from exercising its ongoing authority to comply with federal law. The panel also rejected the appellant’s claims that the ruling constituted a “judicial taking” of water rights or that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned that determining ESA applicability is not an adjudication of property rights, and thus no taking occurred. Additionally, the doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and *Colorado River* abstention did not apply because the case involved a federal question regarding the scope of the Bureau’s obligations under the ESA, which is distinct from the state court proceedings adjudicating water rights priorities under the McCarran Amendment. The practical consequence of this decision is that the district court’s judgment confirming the Bureau of Reclamation’s authority to operate the Klamath Project in compliance with the ESA stands, and the case is affirmed. The ruling maintains the requirement for the Bureau to maintain minimum water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and provide minimum stream flows in the Klamath River to protect endangered suckers and salmon, preempting conflicting state orders. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.