1 Wes Williams, Jr. Eric Grant Guss Guarino / Tyler J ...

Case 3:73-cv-00127-MMD-WGC Document 2638 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 50

1 Wes Williams, Jr.

Nevada Bar #6864

2 Law Offices of Wes Williams Jr., P.C. 3119 Lake Pasture Rd.

3

P.O. Box 100 Schurz, Nevada 89427

Phone: 775-530-9789 4 E-mail: wwilliams@

5

Alice E. Walker

6 Gregg H. DeBie

Meyer, Walker, Condon & Walker, P.C.

7 1007 Pearl Street, Suite 220

Boulder, Colorado 80302

8 Phone: 303-442-2021 Fax: 303-444-3490

9

E-mail: awalker@ gdebie@

10 Attorneys for the Walker River Paiute Tribe

11

12

13

14

Eric Grant Deputy Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice

Guss Guarino / Tyler J. Eastman / Marisa J. Hazell Trial Attorneys, Indian Resources Section 999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370 Denver, Colorado 80202 Office: 303-844-1343 Fax: 303-844-1350 E-mail: guss.guarino@ and P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 Office: 202-305-0264, 202-307-2291 Fax: 202-305-0275 E-mail: tyler.eastman@ marisa.hazell@

David L. Negri Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section c/o US Attorney's Office 800 Park Blvd., Suite 600 Boise, Idaho 83712 Tel: (208) 334-1936; Fax: (208) 334-1414 E-mail: david.negri@

Attorneys for the United States

15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17

) ) 3:73-CV-00127-MDD-WGC

Plaintiff,

)

18

)

19 WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE,

) ) THE UNITED STATES' AND

20 vs.

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

) WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE'S ) JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIAL

21 WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION

) SUMMARY JUDGMENT )

22 DISTRICT, a corporation, et al.,

)

)

23

Defendants.

)

__________________________________ )

Case 3:73-cv-00127-MMD-WGC Document 2638 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 50

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................ 3 3 III. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 5

4

A. The history of the Walker River Indian Reservation boundaries. ........................... 5 B. The initial litigation of the Tribe's surface water rights to the uninterrupted flows

5 of the Walker River for the Reservation as it existed in 1924. ....................................... 7 C. The present litigation of the Tribe's water rights in the Walker River Basin. ...... 14

6 IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .................................................................... 19 V. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................. 20

7 A. The United States and Tribe are entitled to Summary Judgment on Principal

Defendants' Third Affirmative Defense because principles of finality and repose are

8 inapplicable to the United States' and Tribe's claims to storage, groundwater, and

water for the added lands............................................................................................... 20

9

1. Principles of finality and repose announced in Arizona II preclude only

previously litigated claims......................................................................................... 21

10

2. The only claim previously litigated was an uninterrupted, direct-flow surface

11

water right to the Walker River for the Reservation as it existed in 1924. ............... 25

12

a. The Tribe's storage right for Weber Reservoir has not yet been litigated. ...... 26

b. The Tribe's groundwater right has not yet been litigated................................. 28

13

c. The Tribe's water rights to the lands added in 1928, 1936, and 1972 have not

yet been litigated.................................................................................................... 29

14

3. It is irrelevant what claims could have been litigated. .......................................... 30

B. The United States and Tribe are entitled to Summary Judgment on Principal 15 Defendants' Seventh Affirmative Defense because the Tribe is entitled to a Winters

16

right to the added lands regardless of whether the lands' purpose can be fulfilled by the Tribe's decreed 26.25 cfs............................................................................................... 33

17 C. The United States and Tribe are entitled to Summary Judgment on Principal Defendants' Twelfth Affirmative Defense because the Tribe is entitled to a

18 groundwater right in addition to its surface water rights............................................... 38 D. The United States and Tribe are entitled to Summary Judgment on Principal

19 Defendants' Fourteenth Affirmative Defense because the 1936 Act did not preclude

the federal government from reserving water for the Tribe when adding land to the 20 Reservation. ................................................................................................................... 40

IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 43 21

22

23

i

Case 3:73-cv-00127-MMD-WGC Document 2638 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 50

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 3 849 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 35, 36, 37, 39, 43

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 4 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................... 3, 4

5 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) ............................................................................................ 8, 22, 23

6 Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 612 (1983) ........................................................................ 18, 20. 21, 22, 23, 32

7 Arizona v. California,

530 U.S. 392 (2000) ................................................................................................ 31, 32

8 Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp.,

718 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................... 4 9 Bank of New York v. First Millennium, Inc.,

607 F.3d 905 (2d Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 32 10 Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc.,

11

929 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 4 Cappaert v. United States,

12 426 U.S. 128 (1976) ............................................................................................ 8, 34, 42 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

13 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 3 Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton,

14 647 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................... 36

Cromwell v. County of Sac,

15 94 U.S. 351 (1876) ........................................................................................................ 32

Ellis v. CCA of Tennessee LLC, 16 650 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 32

First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 17 391 U.S. 253 (1968) ........................................................................................................ 4

18 General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 35 P.3d 68 (Ariz. 2001) ................................................................................................. 37

19 Geurin v. Winston Indus., Inc., 316 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 3

20 Howard v. City of Coos Bay,

871 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................... 32

21 In re CSRBA Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755,

165 Idaho 517, 448 P.3d 322 (2019) ............................................................................. 37 22 Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.,

793 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1986) ......................................................................................... 4 23 Manning v. City of Auburn,

953 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................... 32

ii

Case 3:73-cv-00127-MMD-WGC Document 2638 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 50

1 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 4 2 Mitchell v. City of Moore, Oklahoma,

218 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................... 32 3 Morgan v. Covington Twp.,

4

648 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 32 Nebraska v. Wyoming,

5 507 U.S. 584 (1993) ...................................................................................................... 32 Nebraska v. Wyoming,

6 515 U.S. 1 (1995) .......................................................................................................... 32 Nevada v. United States,

7 463 U.S. 110 (1983) ...................................................................................................... 32

Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA,

8 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 4

Paiute Nation v. United States, 9 8 Cl. Ct. 470 (1985) ......................................................................................................... 5

Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 462 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 32

11 Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 32

12 State ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 219 Mont. 76, 712 P.2d 754 (1985)............................................................................... 37

13 United States v. Adair,

723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 36, 37

14 United States v. New Mexico,

438 U.S. 696 (1978) .......................................................................................... 34, 35, 42 15 United States v. Sioux Nation,

448 U.S. 371 (1980) ...................................................................................................... 32 16 United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist.,

17

11 F. Supp. 158(D. Nev. 1935) ................................................................... v, 7, 9, 12, 25 United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist.,

18 104 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1939) .......................................................................... vi, 5, 11, 13 United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist.,

19 890 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 32 Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt,

20 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)................................................................................................... 32

Winters v. United States,

21 207 U.S. 564 (1908) ............................................................................................ 8, 35, 36

Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 22 693 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................... 4

23

iii

Case 3:73-cv-00127-MMD-WGC Document 2638 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 50

1 Nevada Rules D. Nev. R-Civ. 56-1 .................................................................................. 1, 5, 19

2 Federal Rules

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ..........................................................................1, 3, 5, 19 4 Other

Act of May 27, 1902, 32 Stat. 245 ................................................................5 5 59 Proclamation, September 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 3237 ..........................................5 6 Executive Order No. 2820 of March 15, 1918 ...................................................6

Executive Order No. 4041 of June 27, 1924 .....................................................6 7 Executive Order No. 4177 of March 18, 1925 ...................................................6

Act of March 3, 1928, 45 Stat. 160 ...............................................................6 8 Act of June 22, 1926, 49 Stat. 1806 ...............................................................6

Secretarial Order, 1 Fed. Reg. 2090-91 of September 25, 1936 ..............................6 9 Pub. Land Order No. 5216, 37 Fed. Reg. 12,383 of June 19, 1972 .........................6

Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-77, 107 Stat. 756 ? (8)(b)(2)(B) 10 (1993) ................................................................................................41

Pub L. No. 100-696, 102 Stat. 4571 ? 304 (1988) .............................................41 11 Arizona Water Right Settlement Act, 118 Stat. 3478, 3523 ? 210(b) (2004) ...............41 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download