A Klamath County ranch in Oregon is seeking $1.5 million from the state and its water agency over the seizure of its irrigation water without just compensation.
Sprague River Cattle Co. has filed suit in the Marion County Circuit Court against the state and Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), stating the taking of its water rights since 2018 on the Sprague River restricts the ranch’s ability to irrigate its land.
Sprague River Cattle Co. writes in court documents that the ranch was part of the Klamath Indian Reservation and had water rights with a priority date of Oct. 14, 1864. The property was initially sold in 1962 from a member of the Klamath Tribe, and in 1964, the new owners obtained a permit from OWRD authorizing irrigation of the property. In 1979, OWRD issued a Certificate of Water Right for the ranch to take up to 5.83 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Sprague River for the irrigation of 436 acres.
The property changed hands several times until Sprague River Cattle Co. purchased 368 acres of the original 436 acres in 2011. In 2013, the state and OWRD issued a Partial Order of Determination, affirming the 1864 priority date and the ranch’s right to divert 9.42 cfs for a duty of 3 acre-feet (an acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons) per acre from March 10 through Nov. 10 of each year.
The state follows the rule that during times of shortage, junior water rights may be shut off to protect the interests of senior water rights holders.
Following a court case in 1984, the U.S. determined the Klamath Tribe has water rights sufficient to secure its right to hunt, gather and fish and to prevent other water holders from depleting the water levels below an unspecified amount. OWRD in 2014 determined the Tribe is entitled to have the instream flows in the Williamson River preserved to protect fish habitat.
“In addition, OWRD created additional minimum flows, by river reach, running all the way from the mouth of the Williamson River, up the Sprague River, each of which must separately be met in order for plaintiff to exercise its water rights,” court documents show.
In 2018, OWRD issued an order that Sprague River Cattle Co. was “regulated off the Sprague River for the remainder of the irrigation season,” and subsequent orders have been issued every year “earlier and earlier,” saying the water rights may not be used. Sprague River Cattle Co. said the taking of water is also a threat in the foreseeable future, and the “impact upon plaintiff’s water rights is functionally equivalent to defendants’ pursuing a case to seize them every year by the exercise of eminent domain power.”
Sprague River Cattle Co. claims without adequate irrigation, OWRD has deprived them of the economic use of the property, hence the $1.5 million evaluation. The original carrying capacity of the ranch was 200 head and has been reduced to 50 head, “which does not justify the overhead involved in maintaining cattle.”
Sprague River Cattle Co. said in court documents the loss of revenue is $150,000 per year, and the value of the real estate has diminished from $2.5 million to $1 million from the reduction in water rights.
“In this action, plaintiff does not challenge the creation of the Tribal Rights or the enforcement actions taken pursuant to them, but merely seeks declaratory relief establishing that the unique circumstances of creation of these rights creates an entitlement to just compensation under the United States and Oregon Constitutions,” court documents show.
Sprague River Cattle Co. attorneys argue the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution state no property shall be taken without just compensation.
James L. Buchal of Murphy & Buchal LLP, counsel for Sprague River Cattle Co., told WLJ there had been attempts by the state to move the case to federal court, and, after some persuasion, the state agreed to file an opposed motion for remand back to the Marion County Circuit Court.
Buchal continued there is no precedent with the case, but “the courts should recognize that when someone buys a piece of property with water rights duly issued by the state, and then later the state decides to take those rights away—even by issuing what the state deems a more senior water right long after the first rights—the state should pay appropriate compensation.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
