Sub-file of A-3-LDG Re: Petition to Modify or Amend Final Decree
Filing
1512
ORDER granting #1173 Amended Motion to Modify or Amend the Final Decree Entered in this Case in 1944; denying as moot #1510 Motion for Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
Case No. 3:73-cv-00031-LDG
ORR WATER DITCH CO.,, et al.,
14
ORDER
Defendants.
15
16
Re: Petition to Amend or Modify Orr
Ditch Decree
17
As the Court has previously recognized, there exists on a river system:
18
19
20
21
22
a conflict between the pure theory of priority rights and the
practical realities of the river system. In effect, this conflict is
between the priority concept and the well-established principle
of western water law that water must be economically,
practically and beneficially used, so far as is possible. In this
Court's view, the waste of water must be avoided, for wasted
water benefits no one. Thus, the pure priority concept, which
would waste large amounts of water and other resources were it
to be strictly applied, must be modified.
23
United States v. Alpine Land & Res. Co., 503 F.Supp. 877 (D. Nev. 1980). The Final
24
Decree in this matter–the Orr Ditch Decree–embodies just such a modification, adjudging
25
not only ownership and priority of water rights, but further establishing that such rights are
26
1
subject to an obligation to divert only that amount of water that can be reasonably,
2
economically and beneficially used. Management of a river system both protects vested
3
water rights and furthers the efficient, beneficial use of water. To this end, the Orr Ditch
4
Decree incorporated the Truckee River Agreement, which provides (among other things) a
5
management framework for the operation of the river system through the upstream storage
6
and release of the waters.
7
Presently before the Court is a motion to amend or alter the Orr Ditch Decree. The
8
Moving Parties ask this Court to adopt the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA),
9
and supercede (with certain exceptions) the Truckee River Agreement (TRA) as the
10
operating agreement for the river system. The Moving Parties indicate that the proposed
11
modifications will govern the operation of reservoirs on the river system, will modify
12
provisions concerning the “Floristan Rates,” will implement an interstate allocation of the
13
waters of the Truckee River and Lake Tahoe basins, and will address claims of the
14
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe to the remaining waters of the Truckee River water. The motion
15
has been opposed. Having carefully considered the motion, all oppositions, and the
16
exhibits, and the record of this litigation, the Court will grant the motion as requested.
17
The Amended Motion to Alter or Amend the 1944 Final Decree (#1173) was filed by
18
the United States of America, the State of Nevada, the State of California, the Pyramid
19
Lake Paiute Tribe (Pyramid Tribe), the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (Water
20
Authority), the Washoe County Water Conservation District (Conservation District) and the
21
City of Fernley (collectively, the Moving Parties) pursuant to Section 205(a)(4) of the
22
Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, Title II, Public Law
23
101-618, 32 Stat. 3294, 3306 (the Settlem ent Act), and Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules
24
of Civil Procedure. Previously, the Court determined that the Moving Parties were required
25
to provide notice of this motion to all owners or potential owners of Decreed water rights.
26
The Court further determined that such notice would be sufficient if (a) it provided each
2
1
owner or potential owner of a Decreed water right with a short and plain statement
2
summarizing the motion and the relief being sought, (b) it provided notice as to the
3
methods by which each owner could readily access and read the full text of all relevant
4
documents filed pertaining to this motion, and (c) and the Moving Parties provided a means
5
by which each owner could readily access and read the full text of all filed documents. The
6
Court further required procedures to ensure that all owners of Decreed water rights who
7
elected to participate in the prosecution of this motion would have a means to be notified
8
when documents were filed, would have a means to obtain a copy of such documents, and
9
would have an opportunity to file responses. Oppositions to the motions have been filed by
10
the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) (#1469) (which opposition was joined by the
11
City of Fallon (#1466) and Churchill County (#1474)), and respondents represented by
12
Schroeder Law Offices (Schroeder Respondents) (#1465). Respondents represented by
13
Martin Crowley of American Legal Services joined (#1475) the oppositions of both TCID
14
and the Schroeder Respondents. In addition, responses hav e been filed by numerous
15
owners of Decreed water rights who have elected to participate in these proceedings. See
16
## 1217 - 1355, 1357 - 1360, 1364.
17
As instructed by the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk
18
County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992), the modification of a consent decree is warranted
19
when changes in either factual conditions or the law – or a combination of both – make
20
compliance with the decree substantially more onerous, the decree proves unworkable
21
because of unforeseen obstacles, or when continued enforcement of the decree without
22
modification would be detrimental to the public interest. In light of this standard, and as
23
further set forth in Rufo, a party seeking to modify a consent decree has the burden of
24
showing (a) that changes in legal and factual circumstances warrant a modification, and (b)
25
the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
26
3
1
Both TCID and the Schroeder Respondents have raised various arguments
2
suggesting that this Court’s authority to modify the Orr Ditch Decree is limited. They
3
suggest the TRA remains a legally enforceable contract separate from the Orr Ditch
4
Decree. As such, the terms of the TRA cannot be modified by this Court without the
5
consent of all parties to that agreement, and all parties have not consented to the proposed
6
modifications. The arguments are without merit. This Court has authority to modify all
7
provisions of the Orr Ditch Decree, including those of the TRA, because the TRA no longer
8
remains a contract separate from the Orr Ditch Decree, but was incorporated into the
9
Decree. The United States, TCID, Washoe County Water Conservation District, Sierra
10
Pacific Power Company, and individual water users signed the TRA. The TRA parties then
11
filed the TRA with this Court and requested that it be incorporated into the Orr Ditch
12
Decree. The Court granted that request, adopted the TRA, and made it part of the Orr
13
Ditch Decree. In so doing, the TRA no longer existed solely as a contract between parties,
14
but became part of a judicial decree subject to this Court’s continuing jurisdiction of this
15
action. As such, this Court has authority to determine whether legal and factual
16
circumstances have changed, whether those changes warrant modification of the Orr Ditch
17
Decree (including those provisions incorporated from the TRA), and whether the proposed
18
modifications are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
19
The Moving Parties have submitted extensive evidence establishing both legal and
20
factual changes in the circumstances of the Truckee River system since the entry of the
21
Orr Ditch Decree. TCID concedes, and the Schroeder Respondents do not dispute, that
22
changes in the law and facts have occurred since the Orr Ditch Decree was entered.
23
Broadly stated, since the Orr Ditch Decree was entered, additional reservoirs in the
24
Truckee River basin have been constructed and are being used for the management of
25
water on the river system. Public awareness has increased, and has been acted upon,
26
regarding the need to protect and preserve species, and to protect the quality of the
4
1
environment. The United States has enacted legislation protecting species and water
2
quality. The fish of Pyramid Lake have been legally listed for protection. The beneficial
3
use of water has shifted (and continues to shift) away from agriculture and toward
4
municipal and industrial uses, and other uses. The population depending on the water of
5
the Truckee River has increased greatly and will continue to grow, while farmland irrigated
6
with diverted water has decreased. The recognized beneficial uses of water have
7
increased to include (among other uses) fish, wildlife and wetland purposes, water quality,
8
and recreation. Efforts have been initiated and pursued to better m anage the river
9
consistent with Decreed water rights, with some emphasis placed on increasing the
10
quantity and quality of water flowing in the Truckee River to Pyramid Lake to enhance
11
spawning flows. Litigation has resulted in judicial determinations affecting the manner in
12
which water has or can be used. The necessity of maintaining a minimum flow in the
13
Truckee River for purposes of generating electricity has dwindled. Congress enacted the
14
Settlement Act, and in so doing recognized (a) the need to modify the management
15
framework for operation of the river system, (b) the need to establish an interstate
16
allocation of the waters of the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River basins as between California
17
and Nevada, and (c) the need to resolve litigation concerning the Pyramid Tribe’s
18
appropriation of water rights. In the Settlement Act, Congress directed the Secretary of the
19
Interior to negotiate an operating agreement with the states of Nevada and California (after
20
consultation with other parties designated by these sovereign parties). Congress further
21
directed, in the Settlement Act, that the operating agreement shall provide for the operation
22
of the river system to satisfy dam safety and flood control requirements; to provide for the
23
enhancement of spawning flows in the Lower Truckee River for the Pyramid Lake fishery;
24
to carry out the terms, conditions, and contingencies of the Preliminary Settlement
25
Agreement as modified by the Ratification Agreement, to ensure that water is stored in and
26
released from Truckee River reservoirs to satisfy the exercise of water rights in
5
1
conformance with the Orr Ditch Decree and the Truckee River General Electric Decree.
2
Congress also indicated, in the Settlement Act, that the operating agreement could include
3
(but was not limited to) provisions regarding the administration of the operating agreement;
4
means to assure compliance with the Preliminary Settlement Agreement; operations and
5
procedures for using federal facilities to meet the Secretary’s responsibilities under the
6
Endangered Species Act; operations of the river system that would not be changed;
7
methods to diminish the likelihood of Lake Tahoe dropping below its natural rim;
8
procedures for management and operation of the Truckee River reservoirs; procedures for
9
operation of the Truckee River reservoirs for instream beneficial uses; operation of other
10
reservoirs in the Truckee River basin to the extent the owners of affected storage rights
11
become parties to the operating agreement; and procedures and criteria for implementing
12
the interestate allocation of Truckee River water. Over the span of 20 years, the Moving
13
Parties participated in the negotiations, and ultimately agreed upon the Truckee River
14
Operating Agreement for the operation of the Truckee River system.
15
TCID briefly observes that some of the changes identified by the Moving Parties
16
were expected, that some of the changes were gradual, and that many of the changes
17
occurred or began many years ago, including as soon as the Orr Ditch Decree was
18
entered.1 The Court, however, is not limited to considering only changed circumstances
19
that are unexpected or sudden, or of recent vintage, in determining whether the changes
20
that have occurred since the entry of the Orr Ditch Decree render compliance with the
21
Decree substantially more onerous, or in determining if the continued enforcement of the
22
Decree without modification is detrimental to the public interest. Rather, in determining
23
whether modification is warranted, the Court must consider all changed circumstances,
24
25
26
1
TCID also asserts that it disputes the Moving Parties’ statements regarding
changed circumstances, but it offers no evidence that the changed circumstances identified
by the Moving Parties have not occurred.
6
1
including the totality of all changed circumstances (regardless of whether some of those
2
changed circumstances were expected, occurred long ago, or accrued slowly) since the
3
signing of the Orr Ditch Decree.
4
The proposed modifications to the Orr Ditch Decree seek the adoption of the TROA
5
(superceding the TRA) as the management framework for the river system. As this Court
6
has previously recognized, one of the critical tasks before this Court is to decide whether
7
the management framework established in the TROA, as established within the four
8
corners of that document and its protections to existing Orr Ditch Decreed Water Rights, is
9
suitably tailored to the changed circumstances. The Court need not determine whether the
10
TROA is perfectly tailored to the changed conditions, but only whether it is suitably tailored
11
to the changed circumstances.2
12
As is apparent from the arguments of the parties, and from a review of the TRA, a
13
fundamental aspect of the TRA is the maintenance of the Floristan or Reduced Floristan
14
Rates through the release of water from Lake Tahoe and Boca Reservoir. The Moving
15
Parties argue that the maintenance of the Floristan (or Reduced Floristan) Rate prescribed
16
by the TRA has become onerous and contrary to public interest as a result of the changed
17
circumstances of the river system. Generally summarized, the Moving Parties argue that
18
the flow rate required by the TRA is not responsive to the changing beneficial uses to which
19
the water of the Truckee River is and will be placed. For example, as recognized in the
20
Settlement Act, an operating agreement for the river system must provide for enhancing
21
spawning flows in the Lower Truckee River. The Moving Parties assert that achieving a
22
23
24
25
26
2
In opposing the motion, TCID argues that the TROA violates the TRA as
incorporated into the Orr Ditch Decree. W ithout doubt, the TROA includes provisions that
conflict with the TRA, but such conflict does not establish a “violation” of the Orr Ditch
Decree. Rather, the Court has considered each conf lict in determining that the conflicting
proposed modifications are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances. As a result, the
conflicts identified by TCID are necessarily resolved by superceding the conflicting
provisions of the TRA.
7
1
flow conducive to the requirements of water users, while constrained by the Floristan Rates
2
as required by the TRA, has become onerous.
3
The opposing parties assert that the Floristan Rates can be modified under the TRA.
4
As TCID points out, however, any modification to the Floristan Rates under the TRA
5
requires the mutual consent of TMWA (as successor to Sierra Pacific Power), the
6
Conservation District, and TCID (and any reduction below Floristan Rates is limited to the
7
period between April 1 and October 31). Ironically, TCID also argues, elsewhere in its
8
opposition, against the TROA’s provisions for dispute resolution, which require that all
9
disputes under the TROA be first submitted to the Truckee River Special Hearing Officer.
10
The decisions of the Hearing Officer are then reviewable by this Court. The Hearing
11
Officer is appointed to a four-year term by the unanimous agreement of representatives of
12
the four Sovereign Parties (the United States, California, Nevada, and the Pyramid Tribe).
13
TCID asserts that “[t]hese provisions grant entirely too much decision making power for
14
managing the Truckee River to the TROA Signatories.” The Court disagrees. The
15
appointment of a Hearing Officer, which is required of the four sovereign parties, is an act
16
attenuated from the management of the river system. Further, any hearings held by the
17
Hearing Officer are public, and the decisions can be reviewed by this Court. By contrast,
18
the modification of the Floristan Rates directly affects the management of the river system.
19
The TRA, however, grants a unilateral veto to any proposed modification of the Floristan
20
Rates to each of just three entities, and provides no mechanism to review a veto by any of
21
those entities. The provisions for management of the Floristan Rates by the three entities
22
was appropriate in 1944 when the Orr Ditch Decree was entered. Under the changed
23
factual and legal circumstances, however, these same provisions now grant too much
24
decision-making power for managing the Truckee River to the three entities, and as such
25
have become onerous and unworkable for the operation of the river system.
26
8
1
In addition, the Orr Ditch Decree lacks any provisions implementing the changed
2
circumstances concerning the interstate allocation of water that has been reached between
3
Nevada and California, the key elements of which were incorporated by Congress into the
4
Settlement Act, and which become effective when TROA takes effect. The public interest
5
is advanced by a modification of the Orr Ditch Decree that causes this interstate allocation
6
of water to become binding on both Nevada and California.
7
Subsequent to the Orr Ditch Decree, the Pyramid Tribe applied for and was granted
8
the right to the remaining unappropriated water of the Truckee River under Nevada Permits
9
48061 and 48494. As a primary purpose of the Orr Ditch Decree is to protect Truckee
10
River water rights, the public interest is advanced by amending the Orr Ditch Decree to
11
both confirm and incorporate the Pyramid Tribe’s claim to the water under Permits 48061
12
and 48494, so that the Tribe’s rights to that water can be enforced under this Decree. The
13
public interest is further advanced by amending the Orr Ditch Decree to recognize that the
14
waters of the Truckee River and its tributaries are fully appropriated and closed to new
15
appropriations.
16
The opposing parties argue that it is impossible to determine whether the proposed
17
modifications concerning the adoption of the TROA are suitably tailored to the changed
18
circumstances because the TROA is a long and complex document. Having carefully
19
reviewed the TROA, the Court agrees it is a long and complex agreement.3 That
20
complexity, however, reflects the attendant complexity of establishing a management
21
framework for operating a river system (spanning two states) that is subject to both flooding
22
and drought conditions, the water of which is needed and used for both competing and
23
complementary beneficial purposes by numerous interested parties, including the
24
enhancement of spawning flows, carrying out the terms of the Preliminary Settlement
25
3
26
The Court also finds the TRA to be a long and complex document, though not
as long and complex as the TROA.
9
1
Agreement, and ensuring that an owner of Decreed water rights receives the amount of
2
water to which that owner is legally entitled. Further, and more significantly, the Court has
3
come to the firm conclusion that the complexity of the agreement results from the necessity
4
of creating a flexible management framework that is suitably tailored to both the changed
5
circumstances and the still changing circumstances of the river and the users of its water.
6
As TCID itself notes, the TROA is the result of over 20 years of the Moving Parties
7
negotiating each provision and operation, and the TROA itself reflects that its provisions
8
address the operation of the river system in the context of the changed circumstances.
9
Finally, despite the complexity of the TROA, the Court is of the firm determination that the
10
arguments of the parties, as well as the evidence presented, have been more than
11
sufficient to establish the understanding necessary to determine whether the proposed
12
modifications are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
13
The opposing parties also raise a more limited argument that the complexity of the
14
proposed management framework of the TROA renders it unsuitably tailored to certain of
15
the changed legal and factual circumstances because, when those specific circumstances
16
are considered individually, the circumstances can be accommodated with little or no
17
modification of the Orr Ditch Decree. The changed circumstances, however, have not
18
occurred in isolation from other changes. For example, the changed circumstance
19
resulting from the Court’s decision in Tribe v. Morton may not, of itself, require modification
20
of the Orr Ditch Decree. The decision, however, is relevant in considering the changed
21
circumstance of the Settlement Act’s requirement that the operating agreement provide for
22
the enhancement of spawning flows. Thus, while Tribe v. Morton requires the Secretary to
23
justify with precision any diversion of water, protecting the flow of water to Pyramid Lake,
24
the Settlement Act warrants changes suitably tailored to better timing that flow for a
25
beneficial purpose. Thus, the Court has considered the suitability of the proposed
26
10
1
modifications of the Orr Ditch Decree against the context of the complex and diverse array
2
of competing and complementary changed circumstances.
3
Though the burden rests on the Moving Parties to show the proposed changes are
4
suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, the Court has considered the various
5
arguments of the opposing parties asserting reasons why the proposed changes are not
6
suitably tailored. In considering these arguments, the Court has not shifted the burden to
7
the opposing parties to show the modifications are not suitably tailored. The burden has, at
8
all times, rested with the Moving Parties to show the modifications are suitably tailored.
9
Nevertheless, in considering the opposing parties’ arguments, the Court has considered
10
11
the merits of the arguments.
TCID and several of the individual responding parties have asserted various
12
arguments suggesting that the proposed changes are not suitably tailored because they
13
result in injuries to Decreed water rights. As accurately stated by TCID in its opposition:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Both the Orr Ditch Decree and the Settlement Act contain provisions
designed to protect the interests of water rights owners. The Orr Ditch Decree
provides that the points of diversion and the place and manner of use may be
changed, so long as it is “without injury to the rights of other persons whose
rights are fixed by this decree.” Ex. 13 p. 88. Further, it prohibits anyone
“from ever taking, diverting, using or claiming any of the water so decreed, in
any manner or at any time so as to in any way interfere with prior rights of any
other persons or parties under this decree.” Id at p. 87. T he [Settlement Act]
(Ex.1), §210(b)(13) states:
Nothing in this title is intended to affect the power of the
Orr Ditch court or the Alpine court to ensure that the owners of
vested and perfected Truckee River water rights receive the
amount of water to which they are entitled under the Orr Ditch
decree or the Alpine decree. Nothing in this title is intended to
alter or conflict with any vested and perfected right of any
person or entity to use the water of the Truckee River or its
tributaries, including, but not limited to, the rights of landowners
within the Newlands Project for delivery of the water of the
Truckee River to Derby Dam and for the diversion of such
waters at Derby Dam pursuant to the Orr Ditch decree or any
applicable law.
25
26
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Likewise, TROA shall ensure water is stored and released . . . to satisfy the
exercise of water rights in conformance with the Orr Ditch decree . . ." Id,
§205(a)(2)(D).
The Court would further note that Section 1.C.1 of the TROA expressly provides:
Pursuant to Section 210(b)(13) of the Settlement Act, nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to (a) affect the power of the Orr Ditch Court to
ensure that the owners of vested and perfected Truckee River water rights
receive the amount of water to which they are entitled under the Orr Ditch
Decree; or (b) alter or conflict with any vested or perfected right of any Person
to use the water of the Truckee River or its tributaries, including, but not
limited to, the rights of landowners within the Newlands Project for the
delivery of Truckee River water to Derby Dam and for the diversion of such
water at Derby Dam pursuant to the Orr Ditch Decree or any applicable law.
In addition, Section 1.C.2 of the TROA establishes:
If the implementation of any provision or provisions of this Agreement
would or does result in an owner of an Exercised Orr Ditch Decree Water
Right not receiving the amount of water to which that owner is legally entitled,
the Administrator shall, as soon as practicable, (a) implement a remedy
mutually acceptable to affected parties, or (b) make up the amount of water to
which the owner of the Exercised Orr Ditch Decree Water Right is legally
entitled, utilizing water of the Scheduling Party or Scheduling Parties who
benefitted as a result of implementation of the provision or provisions of this
Agreement which caused such result.
15
In light of these provisions, the Court must conclude that the proposed modifications are
16
not suitable if they alter this Court’s authority or power to ensure that owners of water rights
17
receive the amount of water to which they are legally entitled. While TCID asserts several
18
times that it is the only party injured by the TROA, the Court’s concern is not whether the
19
farmers represented by TCID are the only users of Decreed water rights that will be injured,
20
but whether they or any other owner of a Decreed water right will be injured. In making this
21
determination, the Court has focused its considerations on whether the implementation of
22
any provision or provisions of the TROA, or the operation of the river system under the
23
TROA, will necessarily cause an injury or cause an injury that cannot be avoided,
24
particularly if implementation causes an injury that cannot be remedied. Having considered
25
each of the arguments raised by the opposing parties, the Court finds that the adoption of
26
the TROA will not necessarily cause any such injury, or cause injuries that cannot be
12
1
avoided, or cause injuries that cannot be remedied. Nevertheless, though the TROA will
2
not necessarily cause injury, the Court must also recognize that no management
3
framework for a complex river system, including the TRA, can eliminate all possibility of an
4
injury occurring. That such “incidental” or “inadvertent” injuries are possible, however, does
5
not render the entire management framework unsuitable, unless the framework fails to
6
provide any remedy. The TROA contains provisions pursuant to which an owner who is
7
injured because of the implementation of a provision or provisions of the Agreement is
8
entitled to a mutually acceptable remedy or to have the shorted water made up from the
9
water of the party that had benefitted. These remedy provisions suitably protect Decreed
10
water rights, particularly as to incidental or inadvertent injuries resulting from the
11
implementation of a provision of the TROA.
12
An “injury” to a Decreed water right is not shown merely by establishing a shortage
13
of water because an owner of a water right can be shorted water without violating the Orr
14
Ditch Decree. Similarly, alterations of historical flows do not, of themselves, establish
15
injury. Rather, an injury occurs when the owner receives less water than the amount to
16
which the owner is legally entitled, which determination requires consideration not only of
17
the amount of the water duty, but also its priority, and certain other conditions affecting the
18
river system. Owners of the most junior Decreed water rights may not be legally entitled to
19
receive any water when the amount of water in the river is insufficient to satisfy all Decreed
20
water rights.
21
TCID argues that operation of the river system under TROA will cause shortages in
22
the Newlands Project in violation of the Settlement Act and the Orr Ditch Decree. In
23
support of this argument, TCID asserts that the Final Environmental Impact Statement /
24
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the TROA “expressly indicates that there will be
25
additional shortages to the Newlands Project as a result of the operation of TROA.”
26
(Emphasis added). The argument is without merit for several reasons. First, the inquiry
13
1
required of this Court is not to determine whether non-injury shortages can occur if the river
2
system is operated under the TROA, but whether injuries will occur. Under a pure priority
3
system, a junior right will suffer a shortage of water when the amount of water available is
4
insufficient to fully satisfy the needs of both the senior and the junior rights. A managed or
5
regulated river system is not limited to ensuring that water is delivered according to
6
seniority of right, but promotes an efficient use of water that avoids a waste of water to the
7
detriment of a junior right. Nevertheless, even on a managed river system, a junior right is
8
not injured when the full and proper exercise of a senior water right results in a shortage to
9
the owner of the junior right. TCID’s argument fails because TCID has argued only that the
10
FEIS/EIR shows additional shortages will occur, rather than arguing that the FEIS/EIR
11
shows that injuries will occur, or otherwise showing that the additional shortages will
12
constitute an injury.
13
Second, TCID has not even shown that additional shortages will occur under the
14
TROA. TCID misplaces its reliance on the FEIS/EIR, and in particular on Figure 3.23, to
15
suggest that implementation of the TROA will cause additional shortages (regardless of
16
injury) to the Newlands Project. A review of the FEIS/EIR establishes that the operations
17
model in Figure 3.23 was obtained by applying the water supply conditions existing during
18
two drought periods from 1931-35, and 1990-94, to various management systems,
19
including “No Action,” and “TROA,” in the context of projected water usage for the year
20
2033. The “No Action” management system represents the current management system,
21
effectively management under the TRA, as it is the management system that will exist in
22
2033 if no action is taken and the TROA is not implemented. The operations model also
23
includes the shortages that would have occurred during these drought periods in the
24
context of water usage and management in 2002, labeled as “Current.” TCID’s argument
25
relies on improperly comparing the shortages occurring under the TRA for 2002 water
26
usage and those of the TROA for 2033 water usage. The appropriate comparison is
14
1
between “No Action” and “TROA,” which effectively compares the shortages occurring
2
under both the TRA and the TROA management systems in the context of projected water
3
usage for 2033, as applied to years of insufficient water supply that occurred during
4
drought periods of the last century. Properly considered, Figure 3.23 of the FEIS/EIR
5
establishes that the Newlands Project would suffer additional water shortages as a result of
6
the projected changes in water usage between 2002 and 2033. However, the extent of
7
those additional water shortages are nearly the same whether the river system is operated
8
under the TROA or continues under the current management system. As such, and
9
contrary to TCID’s argument, Figure 3.23 does not establish that the implementation of
10
TROA will cause additional shortages. Rather, the additional shortages will occur
11
regardless of whether the river system is operated pursuant to the TRA or the TROA.
12
TCID also asserts that conditions that existed in 2008 and 2009 reveal that injuries
13
will occur under the TROA. The argument is not well taken, as the argument omits critical
14
facts well-known to this Court arising from breach of the Truckee Canal in January 2008.
15
As a result of that breach, the Truckee Canal could not be used for any diversion for
16
several months. When diversions could again occur, the amount that could be diverted
17
was limited by restrictions imposed by this Court. In addition, while TCID establishes that
18
farmers experienced a shortage of water in 2008, and a flow of 75 cubic feet per second in
19
the Truckee Canal near the Wadsworth gage on July 31, 2009, TCID has not established
20
that any farmer was injured (that is, suffered a shortage in violation of the Orr Ditch Decree)
21
in either year, or that any farmer would have been injured in either of those years if the river
22
system was being managed under the TROA framework when the canal breach occurred.
23
TCID further argues that the TROA allows the use of “historical” flows in a fashion
24
that injures existing water rights in violation of the Orr Ditch Decree. As this Court has
25
previously ruled, a junior right is not and cannot be injured by a change in an historical use
26
that precludes the diversion of water to which the owner of the junior right was never legally
15
1
entitled. Absent the showing of a legal entitlement to historical flows, the alteration of those
2
flows under the TROA does not injure existing rights in violation of the Orr Ditch Decree.
3
TCID has not identified any provision of the TROA that will necessarily alter an historical
4
flow that will cause an injury to the owner of a Decreed water right.
5
TCID raises several arguments that certain provisions of the TROA permit changes
6
in water use in violation of the Orr Ditch Decree. For example, TCID asserts that
7
implementation of §§7.A.4(b)(3) and 7.C.1 violates the Orr Ditch Decree because the
8
provisions improperly allow the conversion of a non-consumptive use of water for power
9
generation to the consumptive use of Fish Credit Water. These arguments are without
10
merit, as the provisions do not “permit” a change that violates the Orr Ditch Decree, but
11
rather (a) identify proposed changes that the signatory parties agreed would be useful if
12
TROA takes effect, but that are not necessary for TROA to take effect, and (b) establishes
13
duties related to obtaining the necessary approvals for these changes in accordance with
14
applicable law. As to these provisions, the appropriate forum to determine whether the
15
proposed changes will violate the Orr Ditch Decree are the change application proceedings
16
that commence before the State Engineer, and are reviewed by this Court.4
17
Likewise, TCID’s argument that the TROA’s provisions allowing storage of the river
18
system’s most junior water rights as Fish Credit Water or Water Quality Credit Water,
19
which have been awarded to the Tribe, might in some cases “unfairly” give those junior
20
rights a better and more reliable supply of water than the Claim 3 rights used for the
21
Newlands Project. The appropriate inquiry, however, is whether the water can be stored
22
without injury to a Decreed water right, not whether the Tribe obtains a benefit by storing
23
the water that it is legally entitled to divert under the system’s most junior water rights. That
24
25
26
4
TCID raises a similar argument that the TROA violates the “25% Rule.” The
argument fails for several reasons, not the least of which is that the State Engineer and this
Court have already ruled against TCID on this issue.
16
1
the storage of the water benefits the flow of the river for fishery and water quality purposes
2
further suggests that the proposed changes are suitably tailored to the changed
3
circumstances.
4
TCID also appears to make an argument that the storage of the consumptive use
5
portion of a water right will cause an injury by altering the timing of flows that would
6
otherwise be available for diversion. The argument is without merit. The timing of the
7
return flows cannot be altered by the storage of the consumptive use portion of a water
8
right. Return flows are, by definition, comprised solely of the non-consumptive portion of
9
the water right and thus are not stored. Rather, the non-consum ptive portion of a water
10
right remains in the river for diversion by those legally entitled to divert the water. Further,
11
as only the consumptive-use portion is stored, no owner of other water rights will be legally
12
entitled to divert the water when it is later released, and thus they cannot be injured by the
13
timing of its release.
14
TCID’s argument that the TROA violates the Tahoe-Prosser Exchange Agreement is
15
without merit. That agreement was incorporated by the Truckee River General Electric
16
Court into the Truckee River General Electric Decree. Thus, the appropriate forum for that
17
argument is the Truckee River General Electric Court. (The Court would note, however,
18
that the Moving Parties were required to submit, and have submitted, the TROA to that
19
court for any necessary modifications to that decree. The Truckee River General Electric
20
Court has approved the proposed modifications of that decree, thus determining that TROA
21
does not violate the Tahoe-Prosser Exchange Agreement.)
22
TCID argues that the usage of Donner Lake cannot occur as envisioned in the
23
TROA, because TCID and TMWA jointly own the rights to store water in Donner Lake.
24
TCID asserts that the TROA, however, treats water stored in Donner Lake as if the right
25
was partitioned. As both TCID and the Moving Parties acknowledge, the issue of whether
26
the water can be partitioned is currently in litigation, with an interlocutory judgment of
17
1
partition having been entered, but appealed. As the Moving Parties point out, however, the
2
TROA’s provisions for Donner Lake expressly provide that they do not control or alter the
3
operation and obligations of TMWA and TCID with respect to Donner Lake, but rather that
4
those provisions will only control if TMWA and TCID agree, or (absent an agreement) to
5
the extent provided for in an order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus,
6
contrary to TCID’s argument, the TROA, itself, limits the implementation of its provisions for
7
the usage of Donner Lake to that permitted by agreement or by a ruling of a court of
8
competent jurisdiction.
9
Though the Court has not addressed every argument raised by each party
10
individually, the Court has considered all arguments raised by all parties, including those
11
who have individually participated in this motion. The arguments have assisted the Court
12
in assessing the modifications proposed to the Orr Ditch Decree, and particularly in gaining
13
a sufficient understanding of the TROA and its provisions to make this determination.
14
Having considered all of the arguments, the Court concludes that it has authority to modify
15
all provisions of the Orr Ditch Decree, that legal and factual circumstances have changed
16
since the Orr Ditch Decree was entered, that those changes warrant modification of the Orr
17
Ditch Decree, and that the proposed modifications, while complex and extensive, are
18
suitably tailored to the extensive changes that have occurred, which changes reflect and
19
establish the need to modify the existing operating framework for managing a complex river
20
system to provide a flexibility necessary to manage water rights for competing and
21
complementary uses, while also ensuring the protection of existing Decreed water rights.
22
Accordingly, for good cause shown,
23
THE COURT ORDERS that the Moving Parties’ Amended Motion to Modify or
24
Amend the Final Decree Entered in this Case in 1944 (#1173) is GRANT ED; For clarity, the
25
Court will enter the order modifying the Orr Ditch Decree separately;
26
18
1
2
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Motion for Case Management
Conference (#1510) is DENIED as moot.
3
4
DATED this ______ day of September, 2014.
5
6
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
19
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?