WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0033)~ feet per acre. Other experts in this case hava used return f10Wll of a simi- lar magnitude in arriving at a conaumpUve uae figure of 4.0 acre-feet per acre. Tr. 1084; F.M. EIh. 1. The past decreed righta cover approlimately 1939 net acres. See Dote 52 supra. The present cIaime would add approx- imately 749 groos acres to that total. See F.M. E:rh. 2, Table 8; U. S. E:rh. 42, Table 7. EveD if the current claims are not reduced to a nat amount and 2688 acrea receive a divenion of 6.46 acre-feet of water per acre, the conaumptive use of approlimately 11,290 acre-feet is stillleBB than tbe 12,500 acre-feet Nevada boa 08t aside in ita planning process for the Tribe's consumptive use. termined on the merits rather than held foreclosed by the State Parties' plea of preclusion. A number of con- siderations guide my decision. As the United States notes, this case has from the beginning involved a number of complex issues and difficult matters of proof. No oneilhould be surprised that some mistakes occurred earlier. In fact, an ab- sence of mistake would have been reason for surprise. For just such a reason water rights decrees often in- clude a retention of jurisdiction which may be used to adjust the water rights decreed in the event pn error is discovered. 6 Waters and Water Rights S 531.7, at 522 (R. Clark ed. 1972). See City of Los Angeles v. City of Glendale, 23 Cal.2d 68, 142 P.2d 289, 297 (1943). See also Taylor v. Tempe Irrigating Canal Co:, 21 Ariz. 574, 193 P. 12, 14-15 (1920); Benson 11. Burgess, 192 Colo. 556, 561 P.2d 11, 13-14 (1977). Article IX, consis- tent with similar provisions in other cases of this na- ture, reserved jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in or- der to consider any mistakes which the Court might wish to correct. Certainly the parties seemed to per- ceive it as such a provision." Although the 1964 De- cree may have given a relatively stable allocation of water rights, unyielding reliance upon it was inappro- priate, because it was modifiable for good reason. The omitted lands claim presents just such a mat- ter. One of the few aspects of this case that has drawn agreement among the parties is the ezistence of irri- gable lands which were "omitted" from the elaim for water rights in the earlier proceedings. The State Par- ties admit that the large m~ority of omitted lands for which water rights are claimed by the United States are practicably irrigable. The policies underlying pre- Absent additional facts or a more coherent explanation of the present evidence, I cannot find that Nevada has demonstrated that her reliance on the 1964 Decree would be undercut by the granting of the present claims. Much of the discussion regarding reliance is super- fluous. Not a great deal of evidence is really needed to convince anyone that western states would rely upon water adjudications. Some parties have presented in this case more specific and convincing proof of detri- mental reliance than 'have others. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to conclude that those parties would not have used the 1964 Decree as a basis of fu- ture plans. Under some circumstances e.very party might suffer a detriment because of reliance on that Decree even though I find it difficult to determine from the testimony exactly what significant, different action the State Parties would actually have taken if the Indian Reservations had received in 1964 the water rights no~ requested. This litigation is, thus, impor- tant to all such parties, aside from the simple posaibil- ity that they might lose an expectancy from the 1964 Decree. This reliance, however, might not be sufficient to foreclose the present claims. With a full sense of the seriousness of the matter I conclude that the omitted land question should be de- 66. See note 5 supra. . 46 47