The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on June 17 ruled in favor of Tribes and fishing groups, finding that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) applies to the operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project. As a result of the ruling, the Bureau of Reclamation is required to maintain water levels to protect species listed as threatened or endangered, including Coho salmon and Chinook salmon.
The Klamath Irrigation District (KID) and the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) had asserted that a lower court erred in determining that the ESA applied to the Klamath Project.
“KWUA had argued, based on recent legal precedent, that longstanding contracts—some over 100 years old—do not trigger Section 7 of the ESA, which requires federal agencies to exercise discretionary actions in a manner that does not jeopardize species populations,” the organization said in a statement. “KWUA contended that water deliveries under Klamath Project contracts are nondiscretionary actions.”
The group said it was still reviewing the decision but is disappointed with the outcome and what it means for family farmers and ranchers.
“Regardless of the final legal outcome, the current application of the ESA in the Klamath Basin has failed to recover species, decimated wildlife refuges and harmed agricultural communities,” said KWUA Executive Director Elizabeth Nielsen. “We all deserve better.”
KID Executive Director Gene Souza said he is also disappointed with the court’s decision and believe the opinion did not address the district’s argument.
“My review of the court’s opinion is that it appears to be devoid of any discussion of the arguments Klamath Irrigation District raised with the court,” Souza said in a statement. “I disagree with the majority’s decisions regarding the KWUA arguments. I am asking my counsel on how we can get court opinions on KID’s arguments.”
Ruling details
The panel’s opinion mostly centered around the applicability of Section 7 of the ESA, which requires federal agencies to ensure that agency action does not jeopardize endangered or threatened species.
The appeals panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the Yurok Tribe, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources in determining that Klamath Project operations must adhere to ESA protections for salmon and suckers.
The groups filed the lawsuit in 2019 in response to declining salmon populations, which they attributed to Reclamation’s management of water supplies.
In 2023, a district judge ruled that the federal government must follow its own laws and was not obligated to follow an order from the Oregon Water Resources Department to stop releasing water from the Upper Klamath Lake. The department’s order was withdrawn shortly after. KID and KWUA appealed the district court’s decision.
In March 2025, the government asked the appeals court to pause the case to allow the new Trump administration to update its position on the operation of the Klamath Project. Following the issuance of new guidance, the government requested to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested a stay to allow the lower court to consider a motion for voluntary dismissal, which KID and KWUA also moved to dismiss. The panel denied the dismissal requests, finding that ruling on whether the ESA applies to the Klamath Project would provide “meaningful relief” for the parties.
“We now hold that the ESA applies to the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the Klamath Project,” the panel wrote in its June opinion.
The panel found that the earlier decision from the District Court for the Northern District of California was not a judicial taking of KID’s water rights because determining whether the ESA applied to the Klamath Project is not an adjudication of water rights.
The opinion continued that the district court had the jurisdiction to decide that Reclamation had the authority to operate the Klamath Project under the ESA because the doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States abstention did not apply.
Judge Ryan Nelson filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority’s analysis of judicial taking and the Colorado River case abstention issues. However, he found that ESA obligations are not triggered by the contractual obligations in this case.
The Yurok Tribe applauded the appeal court’s decision.
“While we welcome this outcome, we’d prefer to sit down with irrigators, tribes and commercial fishers to identify solutions that support a shared and prosperous future for all communities in the watershed,” said Joseph L. James, chairman of the Yurok Tribe, in a Facebook post.
“The Yurok Tribe’s salmon quota, established by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, has been inadequate to meet the subsistence and ceremonial needs of the Yurok people for decades,” the Tribe said. “This disruption has directly harmed the health and well-being of every member of the Yurok Tribe, which is California’s largest tribe.” — Anna Miller Fortozo, WLJ managing editor
