https://www.capitalpress.com/search/?l=25&s=start_time&sd=desc&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&nsa=eedition&q=Klamath+ranch+seeks+1.5+million
Klamath ranch seeks $1.5 million from
Oregon water regulators
Capital Press by MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI 10/28/22
An Oregon ranch is seeking $1.5
million from the state government, claiming water regulators
have effectively seized its irrigation water supply without
paying just compensation.
The Sprague River Cattle Co. in
Klamath County has filed a lawsuit arguing that its water
rights would normally be worth $1.5 million but the “value
has been entirely destroyed” by flow restrictions that
render them “no longer marketable.”
According to the complaint against the
State of Oregon, the ranch property was originally part of
the Klamath Indian Reservation, which was established in
1864, setting the priority date for the water rights.
Under western water law’s “first in
time, first in right” prior appropriations doctrine, farmers
and ranchers with older water rights can preserve their
water supplies by requesting that junior irrigators be
“regulated off.”
The lawsuit claims the ranch’s 370
acres were owned by a tribal member who sold the land in
1962, roughly a decade before the reservation was ultimately
terminated.
The property changed hands several
times until 2011, when it and the attached water rights were
bought by the Sprague River Cattle Co.
The state Water Resources Department
affirmed the 1864 priority date and the ranch’s right to
divert 9.4 cubic feet of water per second between March and
November, enough to irrigate the property at a depth of
three feet per acre a year, according to the lawsuit.
As part of the adjudication of water
rights in the Klamath Basin, however, OWRD in 2014
established that the Klamath Tribe holds the most senior
“time immemorial” water rights.
The OWRD determined that certain
levels of flow are necessary to protect fish habitat under
the tribal water rights in the Williamson River.
Since actual flows often fall below
those protected levels, the ranch is effectively prevented
from exercising its water right throughout much of the year,
the complaint said.
“Although the river flow may exceed
the Tribal Rights during some spring months in some years,
as a practical matter, plaintiff must have an adequate
supply of water throughout the irrigation season to make
effective agricultural use of their property,” the lawsuit
claims.
The ranch has since been “regulated
off” every year, generally shutting down irrigation “earlier
and earlier” each season, which is likely to continue for
the foreseeable future, the complaint said. As a result, the
property has been deprived of its economic use.
“The impact upon plaintiff’s water
rights is functionally equivalent to defendants’ pursuing a
case to seize them ever year by the exercise of eminent
domain power,” the lawsuit said.
While the ranch’s carrying capacity
was previously 200 head of cattle, it’s now only able to
sustain 50 head due to the lack of irrigation, which doesn’t
justify the overhead costs involved in raising livestock,
the complaint said.
“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,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit accuses OWRD of
unconstitutionally taking private property without just
compensation and violating the ranch’s due process rights.
In addition to the $1.5 million in financial damages, the
ranch seeks an award of its legal costs.
A representative of the OWRD said the
agency is unable to comment on the case because the
litigation is ongoing.
Attorneys for the agency want to
transfer the case from Marion County Circuit Court to the
U.S. District Court for Oregon, arguing it belongs in
federal court because the “constitutional claims” have
raised “federal questions.”
====================================================
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |