Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada
724 F.3d 1181
9th Cir.2013Background
- Truckee-Carson-Nevada water rights in the Newlands Project are governed by the Orr Ditch Decree and Alpine Decree, which allocate and limit irrigation rights and set provisions for changing the manner of use.
- Nevada Dept. of Wildlife and Nevada Waterfowl Association sought to transfer water rights from agricultural lands to Carson Lake and Pasture to sustain wildlife habitat in Lahontan Valley wetlands.
- Alpine Decree Administrative Provision VII allows transfer of only the consumptive use portion of irrigation rights to a non-irrigation use; non-consumptive use must remain to support return flows.
- Tribe and United States protested, arguing the proposed transfers would move the non-consumptive portion to wildlife use in violation of the Alpine Decree.
- District Court found that the proposed use at Carson Lake and Pasture falls under wildlife purposes, not irrigation, and thus violated Administrative Provision VII; it vacated the State Engineer’s approvals.
- This appeal affirms the district court’s ruling, holding that wildlife habitat use is not irrigation under the Alpine Decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer of water rights to wetlands is irrigation. | Pyramid Lake Tribe (and United States) argued transfers change manner of use to non-irrigation. | Nevada State Engineer approved transfers as irrigation by water’s intended plant-growth use. | Not irrigation; Alpine Decree restricts to agricultural irrigation. |
| Whether Tribe has standing to challenge the transfers. | Tribe alleges injury from reduced Pyramid Lake flows due to increased Truckee River diversions. | Standing limited to decreed rights; challenge under Alpine Decree reserved jurisdiction applies. | Tribe has standing to challenge under Alpine Decree and reserved jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 878 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1989) (reiterates irrigation purpose under project and return-flow context)
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (Alpine III: irrigation interpretation and return-flow concerns)
- Alpine I, 697 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1983) (definition of beneficial uses and irrigation purpose in project)
- Alpine VI, 340 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of project purpose and irrigation boundaries)
- Morros v. State, 766 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1988) (wildlife watering as wildlife use under state law)
- United States v. California, 438 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1978) (irrigation vs wildlife use distinctions in water rights)
- Prosole v. Steamboat Canal Co., 140 P. Ferguson 1? (Nev. 1914) (historic treatment of irrigation as agricultural use)