" (Siegle) During hearing of the Appeal, the 9th Circuit Court, while acknowledging that the 1963 contract was entered into with the farmer's interests in mind, found that the contract language was not clear enough to support an "intended third-party beneficiary" who could sue for a breach of contract. it, therefore, affirmed (Ibid.)

In their rulings, the District as well as the Appeals Court relied on the 9th Circuit decision in Klamath (1999) in which the Court had denied "third party" status to the appellants. While affirming, the 9th Circuit also recognized that it "may be at odds" with the Allen (1984) decision.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court, in its unamanous decision, held that the relevant part (390uu) of the Act merely permitted parties to join the United States in an action between other parties when the action required interpretation of a contract; it does not permit a plaintiff...

Since the Petitioners' suit in this case, was brought solely against the United States and its agents, and was not an attempt to "join the United States as a necessary party defendant," the Court, therefore, concluded that the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity against breach of contract.
Works Cited

ORFF et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. Find Law for Legal Professionals. 2005. February 20, 2008. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1566

Seigle, Max. Orff, Francis, et al. v. U.S., et al. Medill News Service. 2005. February 20, 2008. http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/001853.php

Klamath (1999) was a case in which a power company and the Reclamation Bureau had re-negotiated a contract and the irrigators, who were serviced by the dam, but were not privy to the modification and sued for breach of contract based on their "third-party beneficiary" status.

Case Summary