KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. — Agricultural producers in the Klamath Project have taken the water “takings” case to the highest court in the land.

The case, titled Baley v. United States, was filed 19 years ago when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation re-allocated irrigation water to threatened and endangered species. A favorable outcome would mean upwards of $30 million collectively in compensation for irrigators named in the case.

Somach Simmons & Dunn from Sacramento, along with Timothy Bishop of the law firm Mayer Brown, filed a petition on the decision related to the class action case with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

Bishop has successfully pursued cases before the Supreme Court regarding the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act on behalf of regulated businesses and agencies, according to a news release.

In essence, producers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review decisions denying their claims that their water rights were illegally taken in 2001 under the ESA, according to a news release from Klamath Water Users Association on Friday afternoon.

“The Baley lawsuit relies on the fact that rights to use water are property rights owned by landowners,” said Klamath Falls attorney Nathan Ratliff, who has coordinated efforts for the plaintiffs in the case. “The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the government provide just compensation for any taking of private property.”

The petition to the Supreme Court argues that the lower federal courts have misunderstood and misapplied the basic principles of western water law, according to the news release.

“The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case at all, but we believe it should understand that these are issues of broad importance that it should address,” said Mike Byrne, a Modoc County, Calif., rancher.

In April of 2001, Reclamation announced that there would be no irrigation water for water users who rely on water from Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River for crop production.

Reclamation had received biological opinions from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that stated that all water in the system had to go to coho salmon and suckers protected by the federal ESA.

The controversial decision caused severe local hardship, and it received international attention. The lawsuit has a long history, including prior appeals and a request by federal courts that the Oregon Supreme Court clarify important issues of Oregon water law.

The Oregon Supreme Court held a hearing in Klamath Falls in 2009 and issued a ruling supporting the irrigators’ position that the original trial court had misinterpreted state law.

That ruling revived the case and returned it to the federal courts, according to the news release. Ultimately, after a two-week trial in 2017, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn concluded that un-adjudicated, senior tribal in-stream water rights must be at least as great as the ESA-based Klamath River flows and lake elevations.

Therefore the water users did not have the right to the water under the western prior appropriation doctrine. Last fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling.

“This ruling was a disappointment, to say the least,” said Luther Horsley, in a news release.

Horsley attended the 2017 trial and 2019 appeal argument.

“But we’ve been down before in this case and bounced back, and it’s too important to walk away now,” Horsley said.

Jay Weiner, special water counsel for the Klamath Tribes, said the Klamath Tribes are confident in the decisions reached by the district and appeals court.

Weiner is based out of Rosette Law Firm in Sacramento.

“We’ve just received the petition and so we’re still reviewing it,” Weiner said. “We don’t think there’s basis for overturning it.”

It is expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in June whether to take the case, according to a news release.

Lawyer Paul Simmons also serves as executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.

“Water Users really doesn’t have any standing in the case,” Simmons said. “It’s individual’s property rights.”

Simmons said the U.S. Supreme Court reviews a small percentage of cases.

“They have to be convinced it’s important,” Simmons said.