Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4009
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Agua Caliente Reservation was created in the Coachella Valley via 1876–77 Executive Orders; U.S. holds lands in trust for the Tribe.
- Surface water is scarce in the valley; groundwater in the Coachella Valley Aquifer is the primary sustained water source.
- Tribe sues CVWD and DWA in 2013 seeking federally reserved and aboriginal groundwater rights; US intervenes asserting reserved rights.
- District court held Winters reserved rights doctrine applies to groundwater; phases trifurcated; Phase I concerns reserved rights to groundwater.
- Water resources in the basin are historically overdrafted; Whitewater River Decree provides surface-water allocations to the Tribe.
- This appeal concerns whether the United States reserved groundwater appurtenant to the Tribe’s reservation and the scope of that right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States impliedly reserved water when creating the reservation | Tribe: reservation contemplated water; implied reserve to enable the Reservation. | Water agencies: New Mexico controls extent; need not reserve groundwater if not necessary. | Yes; reservation implies water to fulfill purpose. |
| Whether Winters doctrine applies to groundwater | Winters includes groundwater as appurtenant water when necessary for reservation purpose. | Doctrine limits to surface water or requires strict appurtenance to be shown. | Winters doctrine extends to groundwater. |
| Whether the Tribe’s reserved groundwater right is governed by primary purpose and enforceable against state rights | Reserved rights preempt state law; purpose-oriented and not defeated by lack of historical groundwater use. | State correlative rights and existing entitlements may reduce or define scope. | Federal reserved right preempts state law and is independent of current use. |
| Whether New Mexico’s primary-secondary use analysis limits the reserved groundwater right | Primary purpose envisions water use; New Mexico guides quantity but not existence. | New Mexico constrains reservation to primary purposes; groundwater amount limited. | New Mexico informs scope, but does not negate existence of reserved groundwater right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (reservation of water tied to purpose of reservation)
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (implied water rights; appurtenance limits and scope; surface vs groundwater)
- New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978) (primary vs secondary use in reserved rights; scope and deferral to federal purpose)
- United States v. Adair, 723 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 2013) (New Mexico guidelines and reserved rights applied to reservations)
- Walton v. United States, 647 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1981) (reserved rights vest at reservation creation; preempt state rights)
- United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation Dist., 236 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1956) (reserved rights not destroyed by non-use; flexibility over time)
- Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (desert reservations require water for life and development)
- In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1999) (groundwater considerations in western water rights)