ONRC Action v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
798 F.3d 933
9th Cir.2015Background
- The Klamath Irrigation Project (authorized 1905) diverts water through canals, tunnels, and drains between the Klamath River, Upper Klamath Lake, the Lost River Basin, and Lower Klamath Lake; the Klamath Straits Drain (KSD) returns water from Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River.
- The historic natural connection (the Klamath Straits) was interrupted in 1917 but restored and channelized by the Bureau of Reclamation mid-20th century as the KSD; the KSD is ~8.5 miles long and contains two pumping stations (not always active).
- ONRC sued the Bureau under the Clean Water Act citizen‑suit provision, alleging the Bureau discharged pollutants from the KSD into the Klamath River without an NPDES permit.
- The central legal question: does transferring water via the KSD into the Klamath River constitute an ‘‘addition’’ of pollutants from a point source requiring a permit, or is it a water transfer between parts of the same water body?
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants (relying on EPA’s Water Transfers Rule); the Ninth Circuit instead resolved the case under Supreme Court precedent on ‘‘meaningfully distinct’’ waters and affirmed, holding no permit required.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharging water from the KSD into the Klamath River is an "addition of pollutants" from a point source under the CWA requiring an NPDES permit | KSD discharges pollutants into the Klamath River from a point source and thus needs a permit | Transfer is part of the same connected water system; waters are not meaningfully distinct, so no permit required | Waters conveyed by the KSD are not meaningfully distinct from the Klamath River; no permit required under the CWA |
| Whether resolution turns on EPA’s Water Transfers Rule and its validity | (Plaintiff) EPA rule cannot exempt harmful discharges; permit required | (Defendant) Water Transfers Rule exempts transfers; rule is valid | Court did not decide Rule’s validity or applicability because case resolved by "meaningfully distinct" analysis under Supreme Court precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 133 S. Ct. 710 (2013) (water transfers within the same water body are not an ‘‘addition’’ of pollutants unless waters are meaningfully distinct)
- South Florida Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004) (analysis of when transfers between water bodies constitute CWA discharges)