U.S. v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., s. 96-16003
| Decision Date | 30 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | 96-16705 and 96-16140,96-16121,Nos. 96-16003,96-16123,s. 96-16003 |
| Citation | 117 F.3d 425 |
| Parties | 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5193, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8438 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILA VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT; Franklin Irrigation District; The Canal Companies within those Districts; and the class represented by the Gila Valley Irrigation District, Collectively the "Upper Valley Defendants"; San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District; Asarco Inc., Defendants-Appellees, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-intervenor-Appellant, and San Carlos Apache Tribe, Plaintiff-intervenor. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILA VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant, and San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District, Defendant, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; San Carlos Apache Tribe, Plaintiffs-intervenors-Appellees. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILA VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT; San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District, Defendants, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-intervenor-Appellee, and San Carlos Apache Tribe, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. GILA VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant, and San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District, Defendant-Appellant, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-intervenor-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding. Globe Equity #59.
L. Anthony Fines, Raven, Kirschner & Norell, Tucson, AZ, for defendants-appellees-appellants.
Robert L. Klarquist, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington DC, for plaintiff-appellee.
Alfred S. Cox, Cox and Cox, Scottsdale, Arizona, for plaintiff-intervenor-appellant-appellee Gila River Indian Community.
Joe P. Sparks, John H. Ryley, Sparks, Tehan & Ryley, Scottsdale, AZ, for plaintiff-intervenor-appellee-appellant San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona.
Riney B. Salmon II, Salmon, Lewis & Weldon, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellee San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District.
Before: D. W. NELSON, BOOCHEVER and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This is the latest iteration of a lawsuit originally brought by the United States in 1925 "seeking a determination of the rights and priorities of Indians and non-Indians to the waters of the Gila River." United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 961 F.2d 1432, 1433 (9th Cir.1992). The United States, acting on its own behalf and as trustee and guardian for the Pima and Apache Indians, negotiated a consent decree with private landowners that established the relative rights and obligations of Indian and non-Indian users of the Gila River. In 1935, the district court approved the Globe Equity Consent Decree, the meaning of which has been litigated ever since. 1
The parties appeal from the district court's most recent decision in this case. See United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 920 F.Supp. 1444 (D.Ariz.1996). The Gila River Indian Community ("GRIC") and the San Carlos Apache Tribe appeal from the district court's interpretation of Article VIII. GRIC also appeals from the district court's decision concerning GRIC's diversion rights at Gila Crossing. Finally, the private landowners, known as the Upper Valley Defendants ("UVDs"), appeal from the district court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re General Rights of Gila River System, WC-02-0003-IR.
...Gila Valley Irrigation District v. United States, 118 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1941), and the most recent was United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, 117 F.3d 425 (9th Cir.1997). 3. The history of the Gila River general stream adjudication is documented in previous decisions of this and ......
-
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U.S.
...court approved the Globe Equity Consent Decree, its meaning has been the subject of repeated litigation: United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 117 F.3d 425 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Gila Valley Irri......
-
United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist.
...senior rights downstream. See United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. , 920 F.Supp. 1444, 1462–66 (D. Ariz. 1996), aff'd , 117 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 1997) (Mem.). At least one of Freeport's pending applications involved a request to transfer water rights downstream from Cosper's Crossing......
-
Not All Agua Is Caliente: Proposing the Winters Groundwater Test
...TREATY RIGHTS TO FISH). 113. See, e.g., United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 920 F. Supp. 1444, 1448 (D. Ariz. 1996), affd, 117 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 1997). But see Amy Choyce Allison, Extending Winters to Water Quality: Allowing Groundwater for Hatcheries, 77 WASH. L. REV. 1193 (200......
-
Statutes of Ill Repose and Threshold Canons of Construction: a Unified Approach to Ambiguity After San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States
...Death of an American River 17-18 (1998). 2. United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 920 F. Supp. 1444, 1451 (D. Ariz. 1996), aff'd, 117 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that upper valley water users "on occasion divert the entire flow of the stream"); Michael C. Blumm et al., The Mi......