01/14/05 Compensation precedent, Part two

The federal government set a precedent recently when it agreed to pay four water districts in Central California over $16 million dollars as settlement as part of a decade long court case. The districts sued for claims of compensation based on what they called illegal taking of water rights by the government for species protection under the Endangered Species Act. A judge agreed with the plaintiffs three years ago on their argument of violations of the Fifth Amendment, and awarded growers in the suit $26 million dollars. But as one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Roger Marzulla, points out, the settlement made the bigger statement. MARZULLA: The case is critical as having established that principal that the government must pay for water, and indeed in California, the government has established a so called environmental water account through which it actually buys water rights rather than taking them as they did in this case. Environmentalists along with Congressional supporters like California Senator Diane Feinstien urged the government to fight the ruling. In their opinion, by settling or paying the full amount, the government would end up paying of millions of dollars every time water districts claimed they were entitled to money for lost water. But landowners have nothing but praise for the decision, and hope. Hope that no longer will there be an automatic federal mandate on property and / or water right takings when an e.s.a. case is involved. The ruling and settlement can't take away what happened over three years ago when the government shut off irrigation water in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. But with Klamath irrigators and property owners still awaiting settlement on their claim for water takings, Klamath Water Users Association Executive Director Dan Keppen likes what the settlement in California means both in compensatory terms, and prevention of similar water takings happening again. KEPPEN: The Tulare Lake decision and hopefully a similar decision related to the Klamath takings case are very important because it does clearly demonstrate that you can't simply take water away from people who have been using it for decades to meet some other sort of a new demand. There needs to be compensation for that. And that's usually important and I think it will have an effect on agencies and it will make them very carefully look at all the options and alternatives that are out there to protect fish.