Endangered Species Act Continues to Govern Klamath Project Operations

The Ninth Circuit held that the Endangered Species Act applies to the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Klamath River Basin Project despite recent precedent that suggested otherwise. Yurok Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2026 WL 1742020 (9th Cir., June 17, 2026).

The Klamath River Basin Project is a large water management initiative along the California-Oregon border operated by the Bureau of Reclamation that provides water for irrigation and wildlife protection. The project includes a reservoir inhabited by two endangered species of suckers, and its downstream flows in the Klamath River provide habitat for threatened salmon species. After the listing of the suckers under the ESA and consecutive critically dry years, the Bureau began consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that project operations would not jeopardize these species. The resulting operating plan required the Bureau to maintain minimum water levels in the reservoir and provide minimum stream flows in the Klamath River.

Intervenors, an irrigation district and a water users association,  argued that recent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions had undermined the court's holding in Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson that the ESA applies to the Klamath Project. Intervenors contended that these decisions controlled because the Bureau lacked the discretion under its water contracts necessary to trigger ESA obligations. 

The Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments, concluding that its earlier determination that the ESA applies to the Bureau’s water contracts for water management within the Klamath Project remained sound. The court reasoned that recent holdings did not displace its earlier precedent because the Reclamation Act imposes no specific, non-discretionary mandate that conflicts with the ESA, and the Bureau's water contracts—which are largely premised on water availability—preserve ongoing discretion to comply with federal environmental law. 

The court further held that the decision did not result in a "judicial taking" of water rights because determining whether the ESA applied did not constitute an adjudication of competing water rights.

The decision reaffirms that where a federal Reclamation project retains operational discretion, the ESA can dictate project operations even when those operations reduce water available for irrigation or conflict with state administrative directives.