599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010), 05-2293, Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) v. Bureau of Reclamation
| Citation | 599 F.3d 1165 |
| Opinion Judge | HOLMES, Circuit Judge. |
| Party Name | RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW (HYBOGNATHUS AMARUS); Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus); Defenders of Wildlife; Forest Guardians; National Audubon Society; New Mexico Audubon Council; Sierra Club; and Southwest Environmental Center, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, an agency of the United States; Robert L. Van Antw |
| Attorney | Charles T. DuMars (Christina J. Bruff and David Seeley with him on the briefs), of Law & Resource Planning Associates, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant-Intervenor-Cross-Claimant-Appellant Middle Rio GrandeConservancy District. Jennifer Scheller Neumann, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, E... |
| Judge Panel | Before HENRY, Chief Judge, BALDOCK and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. |
| Case Date | March 26, 2010 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Page 1165
Page 1166
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1167
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1168
The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (" MRGCD" ) challenges a final judgment entered on its cross-claims brought pursuant to the Federal Quiet Title Act of 1972 (the " QTA" ), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, in favor of the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the Bureau of Reclamation (" BOR" ), BOR officials, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (" Corps" ), and Corps officials (collectively the " federal appellees" ). Specifically, following a bench trial, the district court held that MRGCD's claims were time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). The
Page 1169
court ruled in the alternative that, even if its claims were not time-barred, MRGCD was judicially estopped from claiming that it owned the properties in question, and, furthermore, the federal appellees were entitled to judgment on the merits. As to the limitations issue, we agree with the district court: MRGCD's quiet-title action is time-barred. It follows, however, that the district court did not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of that action. Therefore, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the portion of its judgment that resolves the merits of MRGCD's quiet-title action and to enter judgment on its jurisdictional dismissal of the claim.
I. BACKGROUND
" We begin with a comprehensive appraisal of the trial evidence, viewed through the proper evidentiary prism. That is to say, we review the record evidence in a light most favorable to both the district court's subsidiary and ultimate findings." Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853, 858 (10th Cir.2008). We highlight the features of the case that are most pertinent to our analysis of the QTA statute-of-limitations issue.
MRGCD was formed in 1925 to consolidate water rights and irrigation systems in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. In the 1930s, MRGCD built the El Vado Dam and Reservoir (" El Vado" ) and diversion dams in New Mexico at Cochiti, Angostura, Isleta, and San Acacia. Essentially bankrupt by the 1940s, MRGCD defaulted on its bonds and was unable to repair and maintain its facilities. Financial difficulty, combined with aggradation of the river channel and consequent flooding, resulted in development of the Middle Rio Grande Project (" Project" ) by the BOR and the Corps. The Project was designed to rehabilitate and construct irrigation facilities, control flooding and sedimentation on the river, and improve the economy in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The 1947 BOR Plan for Development contemplated as " an important and necessary part of the plan" that the United States would acquire " the existing works" of MRGCD. Aplt.App. at 1485. Moreover, the plan expressly identified the " principal features" of MRGCD to include, inter alia, the following: El Vado; the Cochiti, Angostura, Isleta, and San Acacia Diversion Dams; 767 miles of canals, acequias, and laterals; 342 miles of drains; and 180 miles of riverside levees. Id. at 1499.
The Flood Control Act of 1948, Pub.L. No. 80-858, § 203, 62 Stat. 1171, 1179, expressly incorporated the BOR and Corps plans for the Middle Rio Grande. The Act further authorized the United States to acquire the " bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of [MRGCD] ... for the protection of the investment of the United States." § 203, 62 Stat. at 1179. MRGCD was required to reimburse the United States for some of the improvements made to the Project works.
After Congress authorized the Project, the United States and MRGCD executed a contract (" 1951 Contract" ). The 1951 Contract contained several provisions relevant here. Pursuant to Article 26:
[MRGCD] shall convey to the United States with title satisfactory to the Contracting Officer such of [MRGCD] works now owned by [MRGCD], as shall be required to be conveyed to the United States as determined by the Contracting Officer. But this contract is executed upon the express understanding and condition that while the legal title to [MRGCD] works conveyed to the United States under the terms of this contract or by any separate instruments executed pursuant to its terms may continue thereafter in the United States, upon full compliance by [MRGCD] with all covenants required to be performed by
Page 1170
it under the terms hereof, including the repayment in full to the United States of all sums of money and at times, and on conditions as herein provided, and on consent of Congress, the United States will reconvey to [MRGCD] all [MRGCD] works transferred to the United States, under the provisions of this contract, and additions thereto....
Aplt.App. at 1666-67 (emphasis added).1 Moreover, Article 27 stated:
The United States shall not commence construction of any feature of the project within the boundaries of [MRGCD] until all necessary rights of way therefor have been secured [by MRGCD], or satisfactory contracts entered into for the purchase thereof.... All other rights of way required for constructing the reimbursable features of the project shall be acquired as hereinafter provided and payment made therefor by the United States and costs thereof in the amount so paid shall be a part of the reimbursable construction costs of the [P]roject.
Id. at 1667. Lastly, noting that MRGCD had " made certain water filings including filings for storage and use of water in the El Vado Reservoir," the 1951 Contract required MRGCD to assign " any and all such filings" to the United States. Id. Article 29 provided that " [t]itle to all works" that the United States " constructed" under the contract, as well as to works that MRGCD conveyed to it, shall " continue to be vested in the name of the United States until otherwise provided for by Congress, notwithstanding the transfer hereafter of any such works to [MRGCD] for operation and maintenance." Id. at 1668 (emphasis added). Additionally:
The term construction, as used in this contract, shall consist of rehabilitation and extension of the irrigation and drainage system of [MRGCD], rehabilitation and repair of El Vado Dam, repairs to diversion dams and related irrigation and drainage structures; acquisition of outstanding bonds; and rectification of the Rio Grande Channel.
Id. at 1657.
Ultimately, the United States funneled more than $231 million into the Project. MRGCD, by comparison, was obligated to reimburse approximately $15,709,000 over around a fifty-year period.
Because preparing complete legal descriptions of the thousands of properties constituting the Project's works would have delayed construction, the parties settled on an interim solution-a blanket Grant of Easement (" 1953 Grant of Easement" )-which provided:
[MRGCD] ... assigns and conveys to the United States of America all [MRGCD] works and real property required for accomplishment of the purposes set forth in that contract between [MRGCD] and the United States dated September 24, 1951 ..., together with the right, privilege and easement to construct, replace, operate and maintain any structure the United States of America may deem necessary or desirable
Page 1171
for the construction, operation and maintenance of the [Project] and the right, privilege and easement to remove from or place on earth or rock, with the right of ingress or egress for men, materials and equipment for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of that certain contract of September 24, 1951 ..., in and upon the real estate described in the official maps of [MRGCD], together with all structures on said real estate necessary to the operation of the irrigation and drainage system.
Id. at 1721 (emphasis added). The BOR Regional Director opined that the effect of the 1953 Grant of Easement would be to " convey[ ] all of [MRGCD] works, including El Vado Dam and Reservoir." Id. at 1836. In reliance on...
To continue reading
Request your trial