Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35831/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35831-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ONRC ACTION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

KLAMATH BASIN WATER USERS

ASSOCIATION; OREGON WATER

RESOURCES CONGRESS; KLAMATH

DRAINAGE DISTRICT,

Intervenor-Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12-35831

D.C. No.

1:97-cv-03090-

CL

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

November 21, 2014—Portland, Oregon

Filed August 21, 2015

Before: Richard R. Clifton, Milan D. Smith, Jr.,

and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Clifton

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 1 of 12
2 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

SUMMARY*

Clean Water Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation and other

defendants in a citizen suit brought by an environmental

group under the Clean Water Act, alleging defendants

violated the Act by discharging pollutants from the Klamath

Straits Drain into the Klamath River without a permit.

The Clean Water Act limits the “discharge of pollutants,”

and makes unlawful the addition from a point source of any

pollutant to navigable waters without a permit. The Klamath

River is a navigable water. The Klamath Straits Drain moves

water from Lower Klamath Lake back to the Klamath River,

and is part of the Klamath Irrigation Project operated by the

Bureau of Reclamation in parts of Oregon and California.

The panel held that because the waters flowing into the

Klamath River from the Klamath Straits Drain were not

“meaningfully distinct,” as that term was used in L.A. Cnty.

Flood Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 133 S. Ct.

710, 713 (2013) (holding that “no pollutants are ‘added’ to a

water body when water is merely transferred between

different portions of that water body”), a permit was not

required under the Clean Water Act.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 2 of 12
ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 3

COUNSEL

William Charles Carpenter, Jr., Eugene, Oregon, for PlaintiffAppellant.

David C. Shilton (argued), Katherine J. Barton, Kent E.

Hanson, Austin David Saylor, and Robert G. Dreher, United

States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural

Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for DefendantAppellee United States Bureau of Reclamation.

Nicholas A. Jacobs (argued) and Paul Scott Simmons,

Somach Simmons & Dunn, Sacramento, California, for

Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee Klamath Basin Water Users

Association.

Sarah Stauffer Curtiss and David E. Filippi, Stoel Rives LLP,

Portland,Oregon, for Intervenor-Defendant–AppelleeOregon

Water Resources Congress.

Justin E. Throne, Klamath Falls, Oregon, for IntervenorDefendant–Appellee Klamath Drainage District.

Charlene Koski, United States Department of Justice, Office

of the United States Attorney, Seattle, Washington; and

Thomas P. Schlosser, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak &

Somerville, Seattle, Washington, for Amicus Curiae Hoopa

Valley Tribe.

David G. Guest and Monica Reimer, Earthjustice,

Tallahassee, Florida; Yinet Pino, Law Offices of Bernardo

Roman III, Miami, Florida, for Amici Curiae Miccosukee

Tribe of Indians of Florida, Friends of the Everglades, and

Florida Wildlife Federation.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 3 of 12
4 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Philip Bein, Brian Sutherland, Richard Dearing, and Barbara

Underwood, Office of the New York Attorney General,

Albany, New York; Eric Schneiderman, Attorney General of

New York, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae States of

New York, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, Washington, and

Province of Manitoba, Canada.

Roderick E. Walston, Best Best & Krieger, LLP, Walnut

Creek, California, for Amici Curiae Westlands Water District

and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority.

William Jenkins, Gavin G. McCabe, Robert W. Byrne, and

Kamala D. Harris, Office of the California Attorney General,

San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae State of

California.

Annette Quill, Daniel Domenico, and John Suthers, Colorado

Department of Law, Denver, Colorado; Catherine Cortez

Masto, Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada, for Amici

Curiae States of Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah,

and Wyoming.

Peter D. Nichols, Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP,

Boulder, Colorado; Don Baur and Paul Smyth, Perkins Coie

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Western Urban

Water Coalition; National Water Resources Association; The

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; The San

Diego County Water Authority; The City and County of San

Francisco Public Utilities Commission; The [California] State

Water Contractors; The Eldorado Irrigation District; The

Central Arizona Water Conservation District; the [Arizona]

Salt River Project; The Metropolitan Water District, of Salt

Lake & Sandy [Utah]; The Las Vegas Valley Water District;

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 4 of 12
ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 5

The Idaho Water Users Association; The City of Aurora

[Colorado]; The City of Boulder [Colorado]; The City of

Colorado Springs, acting by and through its enterprise

Colorado Springs Utilities; The City and County of Denver,

acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners;

The Lower Arkansas Valley [Colorado] Water Conservancy

District; The Central Utah Water Conservancy District; The

Washington County [Utah] Water District; The Southeastern

Colorado Water Conservancy District; The Kane County

[Utah] Water Conservancy District; The Imperial Irrigation

District [California]; The Rio Grande Water Conservation

District; and The Republican River Water Conservation

District.

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents the question of whether the Bureau

of Reclamation has violated the Clean Water Act by

discharging pollutants from the Klamath Straits Drain into the

Klamath River without a permit. The Klamath Straits Drain

is part of the Klamath Irrigation Project operated by the

Bureau in parts of Oregon and California. Based on the

factual record, we conclude that the waters transferred via the

Drain to the Klamath River are not “meaningfully distinct”

from the waters of the river itself, as that term was used in

Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 710, 713 (2013),

and South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe,

541 U.S. 95, 112 (2004). As a result, no permit is required. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 5 of 12
6 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

I. Background

The Klamath Irrigation Project (“the Project”) was

authorized byCongress in 1905. Act of February 9, 1905, ch.

567, 33 Stat. 714 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 601). It covers

territory in Oregon and California, providing irrigation

services to about 210,000 acres of land through a complex

system of dams, pumping plants, canals, laterals, tunnels, and

drains. The Project service area also encompasses four

wildlife refuges: the Lower Klamath Refuge, Tule Lake

Refuge, Clear Lake Refuge, and Upper Klamath Refuge.

The Project initially draws water from the Klamath River

and Upper Klamath Lake. A series of conveyances provides

the water for use on the surrounding land and connects it with

the waters of the Lost River Basin, which prior to the Project

was a separate water system. From there, the waters and

additional runoff are conveyed via a tunnel through the

mountain into Lower Klamath Lake. The Klamath Straits

Drain moves water from Lower Klamath Lake back to the

Klamath River.

Before the engineering of the Project, Lower Klamath

Lake and the Klamath River were connected by the Klamath

Straits. Generally, water would flow in the spring from the

Klamath River through the Straits and into Lower Klamath

Lake. The flood waters would eventually recede and reduce

the flood marshes around Lower Klamath Lake back to their

original size. The Straits thus served to connect the River and

Lake.

For a period of time early in the 20th Century, that link

was severed. In 1909, a railroad company built an

embankment across the Klamath Straits. The embankment

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 6 of 12
ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 7

included headgates that, if closed, would block the natural

flow through the Straits. Starting in 1915, settlers in the area

pushed for closure of the headgates in order to drain their

lands. Their lobbying effort succeeded, and in 1917 the

headgates were closed, severing the historic connection

between Lower Klamath Lake and the Klamath River.

In the 1940’s, however, the Bureau restored the link. As

noted earlier, the Project moves water from the Klamath

River and the Lost River Basin, along with runoff added

along the way, into Lower Klamath Lake. There was no

outlet for the added waters from Lower Klamath Lake, and

that lake could not contain all the extra water volume. Instead

of simply opening the headgates, the Bureau decided to

control the flow of water by making improvements that

essentially followed the historic path of the Straits. It

excavated and channelized the Straits and some of the nearby

marshland, turning it into what is now called the Klamath

Straits Drain (“KSD”).

The KSD is about 8.5 miles in length. It originates in

Lower Klamath Lake and follows a straight, channelized

path, first north and then northwest across what was once

marshland between Lower Klamath Lake and the Straits. It

eventually turns and hits the historic footprint of the Straits

1.5 miles northwest of the historic confluence between the

Straits and Lower Klamath Lake. It then essentially follows

the path of the Straits to the Klamath River.

There are two pumping stations along the route of the

KSD that keep water flowing from Lower Klamath Lake to

the Klamath River. After the water passes through the second

pumping station, it flows via gravity for two miles to the

point of confluence with the Klamath River. The pumping

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 7 of 12
8 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

stations are not always active. They are used to keep the

water elevation level in the KSD within a certain operating

range.

Plaintiff ONRC Action is an environmental group based

in Oregon. It filed this action as a citizen suit under section

505(a) of the Clean Water Act, (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C.

§ 1365(a). ONRC contends that the Bureau and other

Defendants violated the CWA by discharging pollutants from

the KSD into the Klamath River without a permit.

The CWA limits the “discharge of pollutants,” a term

broadly defined by the Act to mean, in relevant part, “any

addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point

source.” Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck (“ONDA”),

172 F.3d 1092, 1095–96 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 33 U.S.C.

§ 1362(12)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 964 (1999). “Point

source” is broadly defined as “any discernible, confined and

discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,

ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,

container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding

operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which

pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 

While the Act recognizes that nonpoint source pollution also

contributes to the degradation of water quality, it “provides

no direct mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution.” 

ONDA, 172 F.3d at 1097.

The CWA makes unlawful the addition from a point

source of any pollutant to navigable waters without a permit. 

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The Klamath River is a navigable

water. Plaintiff contended that Defendants were discharging

pollutants via the KSD into the River without a permit and

without taking the necessary steps to mitigate the discharge

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 8 of 12
ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 9

of pollutants as required under such a permit. Defendants

argued that a permit was not required to operate the KSD.

The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,

and Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for partial summary

judgment. A magistrate judge issued a Report and

Recommendation that recommended granting summary

judgment in favor of the Defendants and denying partial

summary judgment for the Plaintiff. The recommendation

was based on conclusions that the discharge of water from the

KSD to the Klamath River was exempted from the

requirement for a permit under the CWA by the Water

Transfers Rule adopted by the Environmental Protection

Agency, 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(I), and that adoption of the Rule

was properly within the EPA’s authority. The district court

adopted the Report and Recommendation and entered

summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Plaintiff timely appealed.

II. Discussion

In reviewing a summary judgment, we apply the same

standard as the district court, determining whether there are

any genuine disputes of material facts, viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to a nonmoving party. Olsen v.

Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.

2004). We may affirm summary judgment on any ground

supported in the record. Video Software Dealers Ass’n v.

Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 956 (9th Cir. 2009).

After the district court entered its decision in this case, the

Supreme Court issued its opinion in Los Angeles County

Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 9 of 12
10 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 710 (2013), providing a simpler path

to resolving this appeal.1In that case, the Supreme Court

considered the question of whether “the flow of water out of

a concrete channel within a river rank[s] as a ‘discharge of a

pollutant’” under the CWA. Id. at 711. The Court answered

that question in the negative. It held that “pumping polluted

water from one part of a water body into another part of the

same body is not a discharge of pollutants under the CWA,”

id. at 711, citing to its prior decision in South Florida Water

Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95, 109–12

(2004). The L.A. County Flood Control decision

acknowledged that “storm water is often heavily polluted.” 

133 S. Ct. at 712. Nonetheless, it is the addition of pollutants

from a point source that is prohibited under the CWA, and the

Court held that “no pollutants are ‘added’ to a water body

when water is merely transferred between different portions

of that water body.” Id. at 713. A water transfer counts as a

discharge of pollutants under the CWA only if the two

separate bodies of water are “meaningfully distinct water

bodies.” Id. (quoting Miccosukee, 541 U.S. at 112).

The record in this case demonstrates that the waters of the

KSD are not meaningfully distinct from those of the Klamath

River. Determining whether waters are meaningfully distinct

is a factual undertaking. See Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. at

110–12.

While the facts here are not exactly like those in L.A.

County Flood Control, there are significant similarities. Like

 

1 As a result, we do not reach the questions of whether the discharge of

water from the KSD to the River was exempted by the Water Transfers

Rule, and whether adoption of that Rule was properly within the EPA’s

authority.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 10 of 12
ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 11

the channelized riverbed in L.A. County Flood Control, the

KSD is essentially an improved version of a previously

existing natural waterway, the Straits. The KSD restored a

longstanding hydrological connection that was interrupted by

human intervention when the headgates were closed in 1917,

but that connection was restored more than 70 years ago. The

KSD generally follows the historic footprint of the Straits,

which connected Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River,

and where it deviates it passes through marshland that also

provided a historical hydrological connection.

In addition, as noted above, much of the water that flows

through the KSD originated from the Klamath River itself. 

The general flow of water in the Project is from the Klamath

River, through the various parts of the Project, into Lower

Klamath Lake, and back to the Klamath River via the KSD. 

The water is combined with other waters, notablywaters from

the Lost River Basin, from spring-fed streams and

presumably from runoff like the storm water added to the

river channels involved in L.A. County Flood Control. Still,

it is evident that a substantial portion of the waters returned

to the Klamath River by the KSD initially came from the

Klamath River itself.

To be sure, the KSD is not simply a replacement for a

historical natural connection. The KSD uses two pumping

stations to maintain the water level and ensure the flow of

water into the Klamath River, although the pumps are not in

operation at all times. But there was a pump used to link

different water bodies against the flow of gravity in

Miccosukee Tribe, and that did not mean that those bodies of

water had to be considered meaningfully distinct. 541 U.S.

at 110–11.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 11 of 12
12 ONRC ACTION V. U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

In considering whether the KSD was a navigable water

covered by the CWA, the district court found that “the

[KSD], like the Klamath Straits, creates a hydrological

connection between the Klamath River and Lower Klamath

Lake.” It went on to find that if the headgates and the pumps

were removed, it would be possible for water to flow between

the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake. Those waters

are not meaningfully distinct.

III. Conclusion

As the waters flowing into the Klamath River from the

KSD are not meaningfully distinct, a permit is not required

under the CWA. We affirm the summary judgment entered

by the district court in favor of Defendants.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 12-35831, 08/21/2015, ID: 9655309, DktEntry: 110-1, Page 12 of 12