Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________________________________ ) KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 01-591 L ) ) Judge Francis M. Allegra UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________ ) ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to RCFC 8, 10(c) and 15(a), Defendant responds to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint as follows. 1. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 2. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 3. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits that Klamath Drainage District is organized under Oregon law and is located in Klamath County, Oregon. 1

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 2 of 9

4.

Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits that Poe Valley Improvement District is organized under Oregon law and is located in Klamath County, Oregon. 5. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

5 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits that Sunnyside Irrigation District is a public corporation organized under Oregon law, and that Sunnyside Irrigation District is located in Klamath County, Oregon. 6. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 7. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 8. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits that Midland District Improvement Co. is a corporation organized under Oregon law for irrigation and drainage purposes, and that Midland District Improvement Co. is located in Klamath County, Oregon.

2

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 3 of 9

9.

Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 10. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 11. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 12. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints, except that Defendant admits that Westside Improvement District is organized under California law. 13. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint, except that Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentence of paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. 14. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph

14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint, except that Defendant

3

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 4 of 9

admits that Van Brimmer Ditch Co. is a corporation organized under Oregon law, and that Van Brimmer is located in Klamath County, Oregon. 15. ­ 22. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraphs 15 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 23. ­ 29. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraphs 23 through 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 30. Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 31 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 31. Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 32 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 32. Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

33 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 33 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 33. Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 34 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints.

4

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 5 of 9

34.

With the exception of the alleged damages figure, which has now been reduced

from $1 billion to $100 million, paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 35 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 35. Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 36 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 36. Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 37 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 37. Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 38 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 38. Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 39 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints.

5

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 6 of 9

39.

Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 40 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 40. With the exception of the alleged damages figure, which has now been reduced

from $1 billion to $100 million, paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 41 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 41. Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

42 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 42 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 42. Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 43 of those prior Complaints as set forth in its Answers to those Complaints. 43. Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

44 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint.

6

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 7 of 9

44.

Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

45 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 45. Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

46 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 46. Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

47 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 47. Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

48 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint. 48. Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is identical to paragraph

49 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint. Pursuant to RCFC 10(c), Defendant adopts by reference its response to paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint as set forth in its Answer to that Complaint.

7

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 8 of 9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF The allegations in these paragraphs constitute Plaintiffs' amended claims for relief, which do not require response. Defendant, however, denies that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation. GENERAL DENIAL All allegations of the Second Amended Complaint which have not been specifically admitted, denied or otherwise answered are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Pursuant to RCFC10(c), Defendant hereby adopts by reference Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-3 and No. 5, contained in Defendant's Answer to Complaint for Just Compensation and Damages filed on December 10, 2001, and Affirmative Defense No. 6, contained in Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' (First) Amended Complaint, filed on April 10, 2003. Defendant omits Affirmative Defense No. 4 (ripeness), as this affirmative defense has been rendered moot by Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which limits Plaintiffs' claims to the events of 2001, and eliminates all claims as to years other than 2001.

Therefore, the United States denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for, or any relief whatsoever, and requests that this action be dismissed with prejudice, that judgment be entered for Defendant, and that it be allowed its costs and such other and further relief as the Court may allow.

8

Case 1:01-cv-00591-FMA

Document 213

Filed 02/17/2005

Page 9 of 9

Dated: February 17, 2005 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS L. SANSONETTI 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 55 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 230-2583 Fax: (603) 225-1577 E-Mail: [email protected] 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. Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 514-7300 Fax: (202) 307-0972

9