United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District
9th Cir.; 14-16942 The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment. The court held that a party’s failure to present any…
June 14, 2017 at 06:58 PM
5 minute read
9th Cir.;
14-16942
The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment. The court held that a party's failure to present any evidence regarding the potential adverse impact of water transfers from landowners who were parties to the Globe Equity Decree warranted the denial of its transfer applications.
In 1935, the Globe Equity Decree was entered, governing distribution of water among the Gila River Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and other local landowners. Parties to the decree were entitled to divert water from the Gila River for the “beneficial use” and “irrigation” of land in accordance with specified priorities. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce and interpret the decree. In 2001, the United States and others filed a post-judgment complaint seeking to enforce the decree against thousands of individual landowners who were allegedly using wells to pump water in excess of their decreed rights. In 2007, various parties entered into an agreement to dismiss their complaint if the defendants permanently reduced the number of acres they were entitled to irrigate. The agreement also provided that the defendants could sever and transfer water rights from decreed lands to certain “Hot Lands,” which had been irrigated but were not covered by the decree. Of 419 sever and transfer applications that were filed, 59 were filed by Freeport Minerals Corporation, which had begun acquiring decreed lands in 1997 for the express purpose of obtaining the appurtenant water rights. The United States, the Tribe, and the Community filed objections to the sever and transfer applications.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMorrison & Foerster Settles Macquarie's $35M Puda Coal Malpractice Suit
LA Judge Clears Path for J&J Motion to Toss Talc Plaintiffs' Calif. Cases
4 minute readOil Spill Lawyers Win Rare Disaster Class Certification for Coastal Property Owners
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250