Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 261

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS _________________________________________ ) KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) No. 01-591 L ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Judge Francis M. Allegra Defendant, ) ) PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF ) FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, ) ) Defendant-Intervenor. ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACT CLAIMS Defendant United States hereby moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' contract claims under RCFC 56. Plaintiffs allege that the United States breached its contracts with them when the Bureau of Reclamation ("BOR") revised is operation plan for the Klamath Project in 2001 in order to comply with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). Second Amended Compl. ¶¶ 24-29 (Operative Facts) and 43-48 (Third Claim for Relief) (Doc. 210). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that actions taken by BOR in response to the ESA led to reduced deliveries of irrigation water from the Klamath Project. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this was a failure to deliver "the quantities of water required by their written contracts[,]" constituting a breach of those contracts. Id., ¶ 47. Accepting Plaintiffs' factual allegations as correct for the purposes of this motion, this case presents the question of whether actions allegedly taken by Defendant pursuant to the ESA resulted in a breach of the subject contracts. In accordance with the Court's Order of December 1

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 261

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

20, 2005, Defendant's present motion is further limited to the application "of the sovereign acts and/or unmistakability doctrines[.]" Order, Dec. 20, 2005 (Doc. 257); see also Klamath v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 160, 163 (Dec. 20, 2005) (Doc. 256) (defining the next question to be addressed via summary judgment as "whether plaintiffs' contract claims are legally cognizable in the face of the sovereign acts or unmistakability doctrines, that is, whether under those doctrines, the actions taken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act here did not give rise to breaches."). As set forth in the supporting memorandum filed with this motion for summary judgment, the enactment and enforcement of the ESA is a general and public act of the government that falls squarely within the sovereign acts doctrine. Further, the contracts in question do not contain an unambiguous waiver of the government's sovereign authority to enact and enforce legislation such as the ESA. Accordingly, the contracts do not unmistakably confer a contract right to be immune from subsequent changes in the law, such as the ESA, even when the application of that general and public law affects the availability of water from this particular federal Reclamation Project. Consequently, both the sovereign acts doctrine and the unmistakability doctrine apply and preclude a determination that the United States breached the subject Klamath Project contracts as a result of compliance with the ESA. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' contract claims should therefore be granted.

2

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 261

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

Dated: February 17, 2006 Respectfully submitted, SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division s/ Kristine S. Tardiff KRISTINE S. TARDIFF Attorney of Record for the Defendant United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 230-2583 Fax: (603) 225-1577 STEPHEN M. MACFARLANE United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 501 I Street, Suite 9-700 Sacramento, CA 95814-232 Tel: (916) 930-2204 Fax: (916) 930-2210 REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. United States Department of Justice Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch 8th Floor, 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 514-7300 Fax: (202) 307-0972 OF COUNSEL: STEPHEN PALMER U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Regional Solicitor Sacramento, CA 3

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 261

Filed 02/17/2006

Page 4 of 4

MEGAN WALLINE U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor Washington, D.C. CHRISTOPHER KEIFER U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA ­ Office of General Counsel Long Beach, CA

4