Klamath River

Klamath Tribes Prevail in Klamath River Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Klamath Tribes v. Bureau of Reclamation (D. Or.):

1 Complaint.pdfDownload
24 Klamath Tribes Motion for Summary J.pdfDownload
29 Water Users Cross-Motion.pdfDownload
32 Federal Cross-Motion.pdfDownload
40 Klamath Reply.pdfDownload
43 Water Users Reply.pdfDownload
45 Federal Reply.pdfDownload
58 Magistrate Report.pdfDownload
66 Federal Objections.pdfDownload
67 Water Users Objections.pdfDownload
68 Klamath Response.pdfDownload
69 DCT Order.pdfDownload

Hawkins v. Haaland Cert Petition [tribal management of Klamath River]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Does the federal government possess final decision-making authority over the management of water rights held in trust for an Indian tribe?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Oregon Farm Bureau Amicus

Brief in Opposition

Cert stage Reply

D.C. Circuit Rejects Property Owners Challenge to Tribal Regulation of Tribal Water Rights on Klamath River — Incidentally, the First Case Caption with Secretary Haaland’s Name

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Hawkins v. Haaland.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials.

HCN: “How the Yurok Tribe is reclaiming the Klamath River”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Federal Court Turns Down Yurok Effort to Enjoin Federal Action Threatening Salmon

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):

908 DCT Stay Order

910 Yurok Motion

914 Klamath Water District Amicus Brief

916 Klamath Tribes Opposition

917 Klamath Water Users Opposition

919 US Opposition

922 Yurok Reply

924 DCt Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Dismisses Property Owners Challenge to Klamath Indian Reserved Water Rights

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Hawkins v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

15 Amended Complaint

17 US Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

22 Reply

24 DCT Order

HCN: “The Klamath River now has the legal rights of a person”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Yurok Tribe Sues Bureau of Reclamation over Klamath River Flows

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):

1-complaint-1.pdf

NYTs: “The Next Standing Rock? A Pipeline Battle Looms in Oregon”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Klamath-Trinity River Flow Dispute in Favor of Feds and Tribes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Haugrud.

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, and held that the Bureau of Reclamation had the authority to implement the 2013 release of Trinity River water from the Lewiston Dam, above and beyond the amount designated in the applicable water release schedule.

Reversing the district court, the panel held that the Act of August 12, 1955, gave the Bureau the authority to implement the 2013 flow augmentation release to protect fish in the lower Klamath River. Affirming the district court, the panel also held that the 2013 flow augmentation release did not violate Central Valley Project Improvement Act (“CVPIA”) section 3406(b)(23), which called for a permanent water release that would serve only the Trinity River basin. The panel further held that the 2013 flow augmentation release did not violate California water law and, in turn, did not violate the Reclamation Act of 1902 or CVPIA section 3411(a), both of which require the Bureau to comply with state water permitting requirements.

Briefs here.