KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ET AL V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, ET AL, No. 20-36009 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Various parties appealed the dismissal of their action challenging Reclamation’s current operating procedures, which were adopted in consultation with other relevant federal agencies to maintain specific lake levels and instream flows to comply with the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and to safeguard the federal reserved water and fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley and Klamath Tribes (the “Tribes”). The Tribes intervened as of right but then moved to dismiss the action on the ground that they were required parties who could not be joined due to their tribal sovereign immunity
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, due to a lack of a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. The panel held that the district court properly recognized that a declaration that Reclamation’s operating procedures were unlawful would imperil the Tribes’ reserved water and fishing rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Tribes were required parties who could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, and that in equity and good conscience, the action should be dismissed.
The panel disagreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that the Tribes were not required parties to this suit because the Tribes’ interests were adequately represented by Reclamation. Because Reclamation is not an adequate representative of the Tribes, the Tribes are required parties under Rule 19. The court explained that The McCarran Amendment waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in certain suits. 43 U.S.C. Section 666(a). The panel held that even if the McCarran Amendment’s waiver of sovereign immunity extends to tribes as parties, the Amendment does not waive sovereign immunity in every case that implicates water rights.
Court Description: Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 / Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, due to a lack of a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, of an action concerning the distribution of waters in the Klamath Water Basin by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Various parties appealed the dismissal of their action challenging Reclamation’s current operating procedures, which were adopted in consultation with other relevant federal agencies to maintain specific lake levels and instream flows to comply with the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and to safeguard the federal reserved water and fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley and Klamath Tribes (the “Tribes”). The Tribes intervened as of right, but then moved to dismiss the action on the ground that they were required parties who could not be joined due to their tribal sovereign immunity. The panel held that the district court properly recognized that a declaration that Reclamation’s operating procedures were unlawful would imperil the Tribes’ reserved water and fishing rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Tribes were required parties who could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, and that in equity and good conscience, the action should be dismissed. Specifically, the panel first examined whether the absent party must be joined under Rule 19(a). The Tribes have long-recognized federal reserved fishing rights, and these are KLAMATH IRRIGATION DIST. V. SHASTA VIEW IRRIGATION DIST. 5 at a minimum co-extensive with Reclamation’s obligations to provide water for instream purposes under the ESA. If the plaintiffs are successful in their suit, the Tribes’ water rights could be impaired, and therefore, the Tribes are required parties under Rule 19(a)(1(B)(i). The panel disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the Tribes were not required parties to this suit because the Tribes’ interests were adequately represented by Reclamation. Because Reclamation is not an adequate representative of the Tribes, the Tribes are required parties under Rule 19. The panel next disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that even if the Tribes were required parties under Rule 19, the suit should proceed because the McCarran Amendment waives the Tribes’ sovereign immunity. The McCarran Amendment waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in certain suits. 43 U.S.C. § 666(a). The panel held that even if the McCarran Amendment’s waiver of sovereign immunity extends to tribes as parties, the Amendment does not waive sovereign immunity in every case that implicates water rights. The panel concluded that this lawsuit was not an administration of previously determined rights but was instead an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to federal agency action. Finally, the panel examined whether in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The panel held that there was no way to shape relief to avoid the prejudice here because the plaintiffs’ claims and the Tribes’ claims are mutually exclusive. The panel concluded that the case must be dismissed in equity and good conscience. Judge Bumatay concurred in the majority opinion except for Section V. He agreed with the majority opinion that 6 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DIST. V. SHASTA VIEW IRRIGATION DIST. Tribes were necessary parties that were entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and plaintiffs’ actions must be dismissed under Rule 19(b). He wrote separately because, although he ultimately agrees that this case is not a McCarran Amendment case, the analysis requires more attention. He disagreed with the majority’s suggestion that Administrative Procedures Act challenges or cases involving ESA obligations can never be McCarran Amendment cases.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.