United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 3:73-cv-00128-RCJ-WGC |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Plaintiffs, v. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
In Equity No. C-125-C
This case is "Sub-file" C in Case In Equity No. C-125 (the "C-125 Case").1 Mineral County seeks a further amendment of the Decree entered in the C-125 Case in 1936, as amended, in order to increase the flow of water to Walker Lake. The Court has granted petitions for Mineral County to intervene in this subfile and another. For the reasons given herein, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 751) the Amended Complaint in Intervention ("ACI")
(ECF No. 20).
The Walker River Basin is approximately 4050 square miles in area. The basin stretches in a northeasterly direction from its origins in the southwestern elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to its terminus, Walker Lake. Between the headwaters of the Walker River in Mono County, California, and its terminus at Walker Lake in Mineral County, Nevada, the Walker River Basin includes portions of Nevada's Douglas, Lyon, and Churchill Counties. Approximately 25% of the Walker River Basin lies within California, and this portion of the basin accounts for the majority of the precipitation feeding the system and is the primary source of the basin's surface water flows. On the other hand, the vast majority of consumptive water use within the basin and loss through evaporation from surface waters takes place in Nevada. The basin's principal agricultural water use occurs in the Bridgeport and Antelope Valleys in Mono County, California and in the Smith and Mason Valleys in Lyon County, Nevada.
The Walker River system consists of two forks, the West Walker River and the East Walker River. The West Walker River has its origins below the divide that separates the Walker River Basin from Yosemite National Park. From its origin, the West Walker River flows north through Leavitt Meadow and into Antelope Valley. Before reaching Nevada, water from the West Walker River is partially diverted into Topaz Reservoir for storage.3 The East Walker River is fed by waters in the high Sierras north of Mono Lake. Water draining from VirginiaLakes flows north and joins with water from Green, Robinson, Summers, and Buckeye Creeks. These flows are impounded at Bridgeport Reservoir.4 The two forks meet approximately seven miles upstream from Yerington, Nevada at the south end of Mason Valley. The river flows further north before turning south, entering the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation (the "Reservation"), flowing through Campbell Valley, and entering Weber Reservoir.5 From Weber Reservoir, it continues south for approximately twenty-one miles before entering Walker Lake.
Walker Lake is a remnant of the Pleistocene Lake Lahontan that covered much of northern Nevada. As the climate dried, Lake Lahontan receded and many closed valleys became isolated dry lakebeds. However, several major rivers draining from the eastern slopes of the Sierras continued to support lakes and wetlands in some of these closed valleys, including present day Walker Lake. See D.K. Grayson, The Desert's Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993). Walker Lake is a "terminal lake," meaning there is no outflow from the lake and all surface runoff terminates in the lake. Walker Lake is approximately thirteen miles long, just over five miles wide, approximately ninety feet deep, and contains approximately two million acre-feet6 of water. The shores of Walker Lake are almost entirely devoid of major plant growth, due in part to the extreme fluctuations in water level. The waters of Walker Lake are characterized by high concentrations of total dissolved solids ("TDS") consisting mainly of salts, high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and the presence of hydrogen sulfide. The lake also tends to support large blooms of planktonic blue-green algae,which, when combined with the high TDS concentrations and low dissolved oxygen, create an inhospitable environment for fish.
The causes of Walker Lake's low water level are disputed. Due to the highly variable hydrology of the Walker River Basin, Walker River has rarely produced "average" inflows to Walker Lake. It is not disputed that Walker Lake currently has less water than it had when initial recordings were taken in 1882. As of March 1996, Walker Lake had only 50% of its 1882 surface area and 28% of its 1882 volume. The situation has declined since then. The ultimate cause of the decline is potentially attributable to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, overconsumption, declining precipitation levels, and natural lake recession over time. In November 1994, Public Resource Associates, a public interest group concerned with the protection of Walker Lake, prepared a report describing the status of the lake and its wildlife. The report indicated that Walker Lake supports a fragile balance of algae, zooplankton, small crustaceans, insects, and three endemic fish species: the tui chub, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and Tahoe sucker. Walker Lake is also an important habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds.
The Walker River and its tributaries in the Walker River Basin have been the object of litigation for over a century. In 1902, Miller & Lux, a cattle and land company, brought an action in this Court against Thomas Rickey and others to enjoin interference with Miller & Lux's use of the Walker River, and in October 1904, Rickey Land & Cattle Co. began two actions in a California state court against Miller & Lux to establish its prior right to waters on the East and West Walker Rivers. See Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U.S. 258 (1910) (Holmes, J.); Miller & Lux v. Rickey, 146 F. 574 (C.C.D. Nev. 1906) (Hawley, J.); Miller & Lux v. Rickey, 127 F. 573 (C.C.D. Nev. 1904) (Hawley, J.). In 1906, Miller & Lux and other defendants sought to enjoin the proceedings in the California actions on the grounds that this Court had acquired prior exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed and enjoined theCalifornia actions. See Rickey Land & Cattle Co., 218 U.S. at 258. The Court entered a final decree in 1919. See Pac. Livestock Co. v. Thomas Rickey, No. 731, Final Decree (D. Nev. 1919).
In 1924, the United States brought a case in this Court, In Equity No. C-125, No. 3:73-cv-125, seeking to establish water rights for the Reservation and to settle all surface water rights on the Walker River system. This litigation resulted in the 1936 Decree by Judge St. Sure, and the Decree was subsequently amended to conform to the Court of Appeals's ruling that the Department of the Interior's creation of the Reservation in 1859 impliedly reserved waters for the Tribe despite the lack of any treaty making an express reservation. The Decree formalized the ownership of surface water rights from the Walker River that had been acquired pursuant to Nevada's common law doctrine of prior appropriation. It did not address groundwater rights. The Decree created the Walker River Commission and the United States Board of Water Commissioners (the "Board"), members of which were appointed by the Court to administer the Decree.
In September 1987, the Tribe sought to intervene in the C-125 Case to establish rules and regulations concerning applications to change the allocation of water rights subject to the Decree. Judge Reed granted the motion to intervene on March 2, 1988; as a result, the Nevada State Engineer is now required to review change applications, subject to this Court's approval pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction over the waters of the Walker River Basin.
In 1991, the California State Water Resources Control Board (the "California Water Board") issued restrictions on water licenses held by WRID, requiring it to maintain minimum flows and pools in its reservoirs. As a result of the decision, WRID filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in the C-125 Case. Judge Reed designated the motion as Sub-file C-125-A, No. 3:73-cv-126. The Tribe served an answer, counterclaim, and cross-claim. In 1992, the United States filed a motion for leave to file a counterclaim, which Judge Reed designated as Sub-file C-125-B, No. 3:73-cv-127. The counterclaims seek recognition of a rightto store water in Weber Reservoir for use on lands of the Reservation—which the Tribe has been doing while the motions remain pending—as well as an implied federal reserved water right for water to serve lands added to the Reservation in 1936.
On October 25, 1994, Mineral County filed a motion to intervene in the C-125 Case. Judge Reed designated the motion as Sub-file C-125-C, No. 3:73-cv-128. That is the present case. Mineral County argues that because Walker Lake is held in trust by the State of Nevada pursuant to Nevada's public trust doctrine, the Decree should be amended to adjust the priority of appropriation in the Walker River Basin to aid Walker Lake. In its prayer for relief, Mineral County asks that the Court modify the Decree by: (1) recognizing the rights of Mineral County to have minimum levels in Walker Lake; (2) ordering the State of Nevada to grant a certificate to Mineral County for the benefit of Walker Lake; and (3) recognizing that minimum flows are necessary to maintain Walker Lake as a "beneficial use and in the public interest and required under the doctrine of maintenance of the public trust."
The Court granted the motion to intervene, but it is not clear Mineral County has standing to assert the public trust doctrine, and it does not appear to assert its own right to the waters of the Walker River Basin. The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that a state statute providing county prosecutors with the duty to "prosecute or defend all actions, applications or motions, civil or criminal, in the district court of his county...
To continue reading
Request your trial