United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
788 F. Supp. 2d 1209
D. Nev.2011Background
- In Ruling No. 5759 (Aug. 14, 2007), the Nevada State Engineer approved three change applications to change the place of use to Carson Lake and Pasture but kept the manner of use as irrigation.
- Petitioners Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the United States challenge whether the proposed use for wildlife/habitat constitutes a change in manner of use under the Alpine Decree.
- The Alpine Decree reserves this Court's jurisdiction to review State Engineer decisions on decreed water rights; standing requires injury to a legally protected interest.
- The Court discusses Alpine II and Orr Ditch precedent, holding standing requires plausibly alleged injury to decreed rights to invoke review of non-decreed rights decisions when impact can affect decreed rights.
- Because the proposed use is for wildlife purposes (wetlands) rather than irrigation, the Court concludes the change in manner of use is impermissible under Alpine Decree and related authorities.
- The Court vacates Ruling No. 5759 and reverses the three approvals to the extent they approved transfers of non-consumptive use water and related portions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tribe have standing to appeal the State Engineer's ruling? | Tribe alleges injury to its Winters/Decree rights and wetlands habitat. | Standing limited to injury to decreed rights; petition lacks such injury. | Jurisdiction requires plausible injury to decreed rights; standing shown. |
| Whether the State Engineer erred in treating the Carson Lake and Pasture uses as irrigation under Alpine Decree | Use is for wetlands/wildlife, not agriculture; change in manner of use is warranted or at least not irrigation. | The proposed use could still be viewed within irrigation context; Alpine Decree requires analysis of net consumptive use. | Proposed use is wildlife/wetland; not irrigation; reversal of ruling warranted. |
| If treated as a change, is the change permitted only for net consumptive use under Alpine Decree? | Net consumptive use should govern any change from irrigation to wildlife. | The Court should defer to broader irrigation coverage considerations. | Even if considered irrigation, change to wildlife requires net consumptive use; ruling vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 F.2d 215 (1990) (standing is the irreducible constitutional minimum)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three elements of standing; injury, causation, redressability)
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 503 F. Supp. 877 (D. Nev. 1980) (Alpine Decree; irrigation duties and purposes)
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1989) (Alpine II; standing requires adverse effect on tribe's rights)
- United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (review jurisdiction limited to decreed rights impact)
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1972) (tribe's Winters water rights and wetlands protection interests)