United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, No. 14-16942 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe district court entered a consent decree in 1935, known as the Globe Equity Decree, to govern the distribution of water among the Community, the Tribe, and various other landowners. In 2017, the Community, the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District, the United States and thousands of individual landowners entered into the Upper Valley Forbearance Agreement providing that the individual landowners could sever and transfer certain water rights. Pursuant to the Agreement, in 2008, 59 sever and transfer applications were filed by Freeport. After addressing various jurisdictional issues, the Ninth Circuit held that Freeport failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating no injury to other Decree parties; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Freeport's motion under FRCP 15(b)(1) to amend its applications to conform to the revised maps it filed during discovery; the district court's holding that Arizona water law contained an almost identical rule prior to the 1995 amendment was foreclosed by the Arizona Supreme Court's holding in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court ex rel. Cty of Maricopa, 972 P.2d 179, 187, 204; and the district court did not clearly err by finding that Freeport had abandoned its water rights at issue in Application 147. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's September 4, 2014, order in part, dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Water Rights. The panel affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the district court’s September 4, 2014 judgment in these consolidated appeals involving the Globe Equity Decree of 1935, and concerning whether landowners can transfer their rights to divert water from the Gila River, which flows through southern Arizona; and dismissed the cross appeals. In 1935, the district court entered a consent decree, the Globe Equity Decree, to govern the distribution of water among the Gila River Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and various other landowners. The district court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce and interpret the Decree. In 2007, the Community, the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District, the United States, and thousands of individual landowners entered into the Upper Valley Forbearance Agreement providing that the individual landowners could sever and transfer certain water rights. Pursuant to the Agreement, in 2008, fifty-nine sever and transfer applications were filed by Freeport Minerals Corporation, and the remaining parties filed objections. In a Freeport sub-docket, the district court denied Freeport’s initial ten applications. The district court then adjudicated other sever and transfer applications filed in 2008, and eventually resolved Freeport’s remaining applications. The district court entered its final judgment with respect to all of 4 UNITED STATES V. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY the 419 sever and transfer applications filed in 2008, and it was applicable to both the main docket and the Freeport sub- docket. Turning to jurisdiction questions, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the applications and associated objections of non-Freeport applicants because the applications and accompanying objections filed by the non- Freeport defendants were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, concerning the non-Freeport defendants, the panel held that because there were ongoing sever and transfer applications being litigated on the main docket, the district court should have complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court did not follow Rule 54(b), the panel held that its September 4, 2014 order was not properly appealable as it related to the main docket. The panel held that no Rule 54(b) finding was required for the Freeport sub-docket because no additional applications remained pending, and concluded that appellate jurisdiction over Freeport’s applications and accompanying objections was proper. Concerning further jurisdictional issues for the Freeport sub-docket appeals, the panel held that jurisdiction was proper over Applications 138, 150, and 162, together with associated counterclaims, along with the counterclaim for Application 147, and the additional fourteen applications appealed by Freeport. The panel left it to the district court to decide in the first instance whether the other six applications and associated counterclaims were moot due to the covenants Freeport entered under the Agreement. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the district court did not err in holding that Freeport failed to present a prima facie case of no injury to other Decree parties. The panel also held that the district court did not err in denying UNITED STATES V. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 5 Freeport’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(1) motion to amend its applications to conform to the revised maps it filed during discovery. The panel held that allowing Freeport to amend its applications during closing argument would have resulted in prejudice to the objecting parties, and may have resulted in prejudice to additional parties under the Decree; and such material changes should be made by filing new sever and transfer applications. The panel held that the district court erred by considering whether Arizona’s law of statutory forfeiture, Arizona Revised Statutes § 45-141(C), applied to Freeport’s water rights when it concluded that water rights which vested prior to 1919 could not be lost through statutory forfeiture. The panel held that this interpretation was foreclosed by the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court ex rel. Cty of Maricopa, 972 P.2d 179, 187, 204 (Ariz. 1999) (en banc) (holding that statutory forfeiture applied to pre-1919 water rights); and, thus, there was no need for the district court to evaluate further the 1919 water code. The panel left it to the district court on remand to determine in the first instance how statutory forfeiture applied to the remaining objections. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Freeport had abandoned its water rights in 1.4 acres of land that were part of the sever parcel in Application 147 because the creation of (and failure to remove) a road and canal demonstrated an intent to abandon, and because Freeport failed to use its water rights in the land covered by the canal for at least eleven years. The panel held that the district court appropriately tailored its holding by limiting its finding of abandonment to 1.4 acres out of the 15.5 acre parcel. 6 UNITED STATES V. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY The panel declined to address in the first instance the question of abandonment of water rights in land that had become riverbed in certain applications.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.