Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 203
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- The United States and the Klamath Tribes entered an 1864 treaty reserving fishing rights and trust obligations, while Congress later terminated federal supervision under the 1954 Act but preserved treaty rights.
- The 1954 Act authorized disbursement of funds for irrigation costs (section 13) and eventual transfer of tribal assets, with deadlines that culminated in an August 13, 1958/1961 timeline; funds were intended to reimburse the Tribes’ irrigation expenditures.
- The Klamath Claims Committee, authorized by the Tribes, represents all tribal members on the rolls as of the termination; it pursued claims against the United States, including takings and fiduciary duties related to disbursements and water rights.
- Removal of the Chiloquin Dam (completed 2008) and the transfer of ownership of irrigation facilities to a non-federal entity occurred after termination, while treaty rights and fiduciary duties were preserved but not altered by Restoration Act.
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging (i) a taking for non-disbursement of section 13 funds, (ii) fiduciary breach for those disbursements, (iii) a taking for dam removal and water storage loss, and (iv) fiduciary breach for dam removal; defendant moved to dismiss.
- The court dismissed some counts for lack of jurisdiction under the six-year statute of limitations and invited the Tribes to intervene under RCFC 19 for joinder considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are timely under the Tucker Act six-year limit | Klamath Claims Committee | Interior asserts claims accrue early; timely defense | Counts 1 and 2 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to §2501 time bars |
| Whether damages from Dam removal are timely and cognizable | Disbursement/ Dam-related claims fall within §1505 | Dam removal occurred long before filing; time-barred | Dam-related claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; outside six-year window |
| Whether Tribes must be joined under RCFC 19(a) for complete relief | Tribally asserted interests are identical or overlapping; joinder required | Tribal participation not essential for standing/claims | Tribes must be joined under RCFC 19(a); absent tribes would prevent complete relief |
| Whether the Tribes are indispensable or can intervene under RCFC 24 | If Tribes cannot be joined, court should consider intervention | Sovereign immunity may prevent compulsory joinder | Court invites Tribes to intervene; if they decline, court will assess indispensability under RCFC 19(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. United States, 436 F.2d 1008 (Ct.Cl. 1971) (settlement of takings claims under termination act; deadlines extended)
- Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (U.S. 2008) (Rule 19 analysis and indispensability of absent parties)
- Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Michigan, 11 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1993) (Rule 19(a) joinder for treaty fishing rights; absent tribe must be joined)
- Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (treaty rights and joinder considerations in tribal cases)
- Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (interests and joinder when absent party claims rights)