{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:5aa9a2", "proof": "sha256:7c12ee54709b42f47bfcb0048862e8ef6fc398bc9de710b21509596df9331edf", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC.; DAVID", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JOHN ELDRIDGE; RUTH", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ELDRIDGE, as Co-Trustees of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "David John Eldridge and Ruth", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Eldridge Family Living Trust dated", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "January 31, 2007; ZANE JORDAN;", "paragraphs": [ "para_10", "para_11", "para_12" ] }, { "title": "DOUG BURGUM, in his official", "paragraphs": [ "para_14" ] }, { "title": "States Department of the Interior;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OF THE INTERIOR; SHAWN", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BENGE, in his official capacity as", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Acting Director of the National Park", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Service; NATIONAL PARK", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SERVICE; ASHLEY ADAMS, in", "paragraphs": [ "para_22" ] }, { "title": "Superintendent of the Great Basin", "paragraphs": [ "para_24", "para_25" ] }, { "title": "No. 24-5713", "paragraphs": [ "para_27" ] }, { "title": "3:21-cv-00150-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "GMN-CSD", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_33" ] }, { "title": "Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Argued and Submitted March 24, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pasadena, California", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed September 30, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and John B. Owens, Circuit", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Judges, and Sidney A. Fitzwater, District Judge.*", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Opinion by Judge Owens;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dissent by Judge Rawlinson", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SUMMARY**", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Sovereign Immunity / McCarran Amendment", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a suit", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46" ] }, { "title": "In 1934, a Nevada state court entered the Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehmann Decree, setting out the water rights for the Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehman Creeks, which flow through what is now the Great", "paragraphs": [ "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs, including Baker Ranches, Inc., own downstream", "paragraphs": [ "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs argued that the United States’ sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "U.S.C. § 666(a). The McCarran Amendment was enacted in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1952 but retroactively applies to the administration of", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment and dismissed Plaintiffs’ case for", "paragraphs": [ "para_73" ] }, { "title": "Reversing, the panel held that the McCarran Amendment", "paragraphs": [ "para_75" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment waives sovereign immunity for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment controls in cases adjudicating or", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84" ] }, { "title": "Lehmann Decree. Accordingly, the panel held that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment waived the United States’ sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_87" ] }, { "title": "4 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson would affirm the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_90" ] }, { "title": "United States was not waived by the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment. Under the language of the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment, expressed legislative intent, Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_94", "para_95" ] }, { "title": "Creeks adjudication. Thus, the Baker Lehman Decree does", "paragraphs": [ "para_97" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Benjamin J. Hogan (argued), Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "LLP, Denver, Colorado; Jean-Claude Andre, Bryan Cave", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102" ] }, { "title": "Missouri; Debbie Leonard, Leonard Law PC, Reno, Nevada;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Kole W. Kelley and Ivan L. London, Mountain States Legal", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106" ] }, { "title": "Attorneys, Environment & Natural Resources Division;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Adam R.F. Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Karen Glasgow, Supervisory Attorney-Advisor, Office of", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "Colorado; Andrew M. Bernie and Jason Lee, Trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_113" ] }, { "title": "Washington, D.C.; Holly A. Vance, Assistant United States", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United States", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Department of Justice, Reno, Nevada; for Defendants-", "paragraphs": [ "para_117" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 5", "paragraphs": [ "para_119", "para_120" ] }, { "title": "Nevada Attorney General; Office of the Nevada Attorney", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "General, Carson City, Nevada; for Amicus Curiae State of", "paragraphs": [ "para_123", "para_124" ] }, { "title": "Skulan, Schroeder Law Offices PC, Portland, Oregon, for", "paragraphs": [ "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "Nevada Association of County Commissioners, Nevada", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Land Action Association, Nevada Grazing Board of District", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 4, Pershing County, Pershing County, Pershing County", "paragraphs": [ "para_131", "para_132", "para_133" ] }, { "title": "Nevada, for Amici Curiae Western State Farm Bureau", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Federations (Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm", "paragraphs": [ "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ] }, { "title": "6 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OWENS, Circuit Judge:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Baker Ranches, Inc., David John Eldridge, Ruth", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Eldridge, Zane Jordan, and Judee Schaley (collectively", "paragraphs": [ "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149" ] }, { "title": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In 1934, a Nevada state court entered a decree that set", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Park”), created in 1986. Under the so-called “Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehman Decree” (“Decree”), Plaintiffs own downstream", "paragraphs": [ "para_156", "para_157" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs allege that the Park has engaged in activities—", "paragraphs": [ "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163" ] }, { "title": "After extensive litigation in multiple forums, the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_165", "para_166", "para_167" ] }, { "title": "States. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_169", "para_170" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_172" ] }, { "title": "Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone", "paragraphs": [ "para_174" ] }, { "title": "2003). We agree. To understand why, we begin with a brief", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177" ] }, { "title": "A. Development of Federal and Nevada Water Law", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Water rights—crucial to the development of the land-", "paragraphs": [ "para_180", "para_181" ] }, { "title": "Waters & Water Rights § 15.01 (2026). A claimant would", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185" ] }, { "title": "But because the rights of all claimants to a particular water", "paragraphs": [ "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190" ] }, { "title": "Live Stock Co. v. Or. Water Bd., 241 U.S. 440, 449 (1916)", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194" ] }, { "title": "The rights of all claimants to a particular water source", "paragraphs": [ "para_196", "para_197" ] }, { "title": "Id. But joinder of the “hundreds or thousands” of individual", "paragraphs": [ "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "8 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205" ] }, { "title": "In 1913, Nevada created its present statutory system for", "paragraphs": [ "para_207" ] }, { "title": "Mar. 22, 1913, ch. 140, 1913 Nev. Stat. 192 (codified as", "paragraphs": [ "para_209" ] }, { "title": "Law”). Under this system, adjudication would proceed as", "paragraphs": [ "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216" ] }, { "title": "533.100, 533.160. After further notice and hearings, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "Engineer and state water commissioners acting as officers of", "paragraphs": [ "para_223" ] }, { "title": "But one issue remained. “While these statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "(1951). And the United States’ refusal to submit to state", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 9", "paragraphs": [ "para_237", "para_238" ] }, { "title": "In 1952, Congress took action. It passed the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment, which waives the sovereign immunity of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States “in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243" ] }, { "title": "United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring", "paragraphs": [ "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249" ] }, { "title": "1 One notable example was the federal government’s attempt to acquire", "paragraphs": [ "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256" ] }, { "title": "Yackey, general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_258", "para_259", "para_260" ] }, { "title": "1951, reprinted in 98 Cong. Rec. 124 (1952); Frank Capra, The", "paragraphs": [ "para_262" ] }, { "title": "The United States was also involved in highly contentious water", "paragraphs": [ "para_264", "para_265", "para_266" ] }, { "title": "27 (statement of Glenn G. Saunders, representing the National", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Reclamation Association). These controversies, caused by the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States’ use of its sovereign immunity to preclude the adjudication and", "paragraphs": [ "para_270", "para_271" ] }, { "title": "10 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_273" ] }, { "title": "2002) (“[T]he McCarran Amendment applies to water rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_275", "para_276" ] }, { "title": "(applying the McCarran Amendment when the United States", "paragraphs": [ "para_278" ] }, { "title": "The McCarran Amendment was introduced to correct the", "paragraphs": [ "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Being focused on the “evils growing out of [the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States’] immunity” from proceedings in which “all water", "paragraphs": [ "para_288", "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "For instance, in response to concerns that individuals", "paragraphs": [ "para_292" ] }, { "title": "Bureau of Reclamation, Senator Pat McCarran—the bill’s", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Senate sponsor and namesake—assured that it was “not", "paragraphs": [ "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "B. Water Rights on the Baker-Lehman Creeks", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1. The Baker-Lehman Adjudication and Decree", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "More than two decades before the passage of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment, the State Engineer of Nevada in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1925 initiated a determination of water rights on the Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehman Creeks (“Baker-Lehman Adjudication”). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321" ] }, { "title": "After the State Engineer filed the order of determination", "paragraphs": [ "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328" ] }, { "title": "Finally, on October 16, 1934, the state court entered the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Decree. Applications to modify the decree", "paragraphs": [ "para_331" ] }, { "title": "Rev. Stat. § 533.210. Under Nevada law, this decree was to", "paragraphs": [ "para_333" ] }, { "title": "Lehman Creeks. Id. Any future rights claimed on the Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehman Creeks could only be adjudicated in a", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338" ] }, { "title": "12 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "429 (Nev. 2020) (observing that Nevada’s water law", "paragraphs": [ "para_341" ] }, { "title": "The Baker-Lehman Decree provided, in part, that “each", "paragraphs": [ "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351" ] }, { "title": "2. The Parties’ Water Rights", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Under the Baker-Lehman Decree, Baker Ranches holds", "paragraphs": [ "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357" ] }, { "title": "The United States claims two types of water rights on the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Creeks. First, it holds appropriative rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366" ] }, { "title": "2 When the United States withdraws land from the public domain and", "paragraphs": [ "para_368", "para_369" ] }, { "title": "States, 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908). Reserved water rights vest, or have a", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 13", "paragraphs": [ "para_372" ] }, { "title": "556,000 acres to establish the Nevada National Forest. See", "paragraphs": [ "para_374" ] }, { "title": "Additional reservations were made in 1922, for the Lehman", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Caves National Monument, and in 1986, to create Great", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379" ] }, { "title": "3. The Instant Litigation", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "When Plaintiffs first began appropriating water from the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Creeks, the streams flowed through land in", "paragraphs": [ "para_383", "para_384" ] }, { "title": "Park’s activities—diverting water for campgrounds and dust", "paragraphs": [ "para_386", "para_387", "para_388" ] }, { "title": "In 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit in Nevada state court to", "paragraphs": [ "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398" ] }, { "title": "Amendment. See Baker Ranches, Inc. v. Haaland, Nos. 22-", "paragraphs": [ "para_400", "para_401" ] }, { "title": "14 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_403" ] }, { "title": "2023).3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The district court determined that sovereign immunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_406", "para_407", "para_408" ] }, { "title": "Lehman Adjudication, it was not a “comprehensive", "paragraphs": [ "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416" ] }, { "title": "States’ sovereign immunity in this case, and we hold that it", "paragraphs": [ "para_418" ] }, { "title": "II. DISCUSSION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A. Standard of Review", "paragraphs": [ "para_421", "para_422" ] }, { "title": "States has waived its sovereign immunity.” Harger v. Dep’t", "paragraphs": [ "para_424" ] }, { "title": "The state court found that the McCarran Amendment waived sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431" ] }, { "title": "P.3d 664 (Nev. 2024) (unpublished table decision). It dismissed the", "paragraphs": [ "para_433", "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 15", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440" ] }, { "title": "Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (per", "paragraphs": [ "para_442", "para_443" ] }, { "title": "B. The Baker-Lehman Decree Was Comprehensive", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The McCarran Amendment waives sovereign immunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447" ] }, { "title": "524 (“‘[T]he administration of such rights’ in § 666(a)(2)", "paragraphs": [ "para_449" ] }, { "title": "508 U.S. at 3 (the United States may be joined “as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_451" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs sued to enforce rights determined by the Baker-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lehman Adjudication between 1925 and 1934, years before", "paragraphs": [ "para_454", "para_455" ] }, { "title": "States was not a party and the reserved rights it asserts today", "paragraphs": [ "para_457", "para_458", "para_459" ] }, { "title": "But this reasoning distorts the meaning and purpose of", "paragraphs": [ "para_461" ] }, { "title": "This requirement—which does not appear in the text of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_463", "para_464" ] }, { "title": "618 (1963) (citing S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 9", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1951)); see also Oregon, 44 F.3d at 766. “The clear federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_467", "para_468" ] }, { "title": "16 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473" ] }, { "title": "Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 819 (1976) (emphasis", "paragraphs": [ "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482" ] }, { "title": "The 1913 Nevada Water Law is clearly one of those", "paragraphs": [ "para_484" ] }, { "title": "Amendment was meant to support. Our caselaw has", "paragraphs": [ "para_486" ] }, { "title": "(describing the law as “Nevada’s comprehensive system for", "paragraphs": [ "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497" ] }, { "title": "Over the course of nine years, the Baker-Lehman", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Adjudication was conducted scrupulously according to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_500" ] }, { "title": "State Engineer and the Seventh Judicial District Court of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Nevada repeatedly provided notice to all claimants and to the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 17", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States. The United States chose not to assert any", "paragraphs": [ "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510" ] }, { "title": "Regardless of the United States’ failure to claim the", "paragraphs": [ "para_512" ] }, { "title": "Adjudication was meant to serve as a final determination of", "paragraphs": [ "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518" ] }, { "title": "755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 9). It was therefore precisely the", "paragraphs": [ "para_520", "para_521" ] }, { "title": "According to the United States, an adjudication is not", "paragraphs": [ "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528" ] }, { "title": "Adjudication was not comprehensive because it took place", "paragraphs": [ "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535" ] }, { "title": "18 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_537", "para_538" ] }, { "title": "But the United States’ argument runs headlong against", "paragraphs": [ "para_540", "para_541" ] }, { "title": "Amendment based on “extremely technical” constructions", "paragraphs": [ "para_543" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 525; see also Oregon, 44 F.3d at 768. The McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment was motivated by Congress’ concern that “the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States not be subjected to piecemeal, private water", "paragraphs": [ "para_547", "para_548", "para_549" ] }, { "title": "768 (first citing Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. at 525; and then citing", "paragraphs": [ "para_551", "para_552" ] }, { "title": "The United States would instead have us reopen a settled", "paragraphs": [ "para_554", "para_555" ] }, { "title": "Amendment’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and the United", "paragraphs": [ "para_557" ] }, { "title": "The United States suggests that because these adjudications", "paragraphs": [ "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563" ] }, { "title": "Amendment decrees can be considered settled. It would be", "paragraphs": [ "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 19", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Furthermore, retroactively applying the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment is no issue. The United States argues that it", "paragraphs": [ "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "United States could be joined in a supplemental adjudication", "paragraphs": [ "para_578" ] }, { "title": "401 U.S. at 525-26. Because the supplemental adjudication", "paragraphs": [ "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, we have squarely held, for decades, that “the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment waives the United States’s immunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_587", "para_588" ] }, { "title": "4 That supplemental adjudications may not unsettle rights determined", "paragraphs": [ "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594" ] }, { "title": "United States’ reserved rights. But because rights determined in those", "paragraphs": [ "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604" ] }, { "title": "20 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610" ] }, { "title": "811-13. The Supreme Court likewise found the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment applicable even when the underlying federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_613", "para_614" ] }, { "title": "Cnty., 401 U.S. at 523. And the First Circuit has", "paragraphs": [ "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620" ] }, { "title": "The dissent acknowledges that Te-Moak holds “that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment applies retroactively.” But it claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_623", "para_624" ] }, { "title": "Moak,” constitutes binding precedent requiring “that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment does not apply absent adjudication", "paragraphs": [ "para_627" ] }, { "title": "Orff and Te-Moak are in fact distinguishable for an", "paragraphs": [ "para_629" ] }, { "title": "Amendment case. The plaintiffs in Orff “did not even plead", "paragraphs": [ "para_631" ] }, { "title": "1144. Tellingly, neither the United States nor the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_633", "para_634" ] }, { "title": "Orff involved a 1963 contract between the Westlands", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Water District and the United States. See id. at 1141. The", "paragraphs": [ "para_637" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 21", "paragraphs": [ "para_639", "para_640" ] }, { "title": "Amendment solely to reject the plaintiffs’ argument that a", "paragraphs": [ "para_642" ] }, { "title": "States from asserting sovereign immunity under this", "paragraphs": [ "para_644" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment did not apply in Orff because it", "paragraphs": [ "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650" ] }, { "title": "The dissent cites Metropolitan Water Dist. and Dugan", "paragraphs": [ "para_652" ] }, { "title": "Amendment applies solely to adjudications of the rights of", "paragraphs": [ "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657" ] }, { "title": "States, 830 F.2d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment “does not authorize private suits to", "paragraphs": [ "para_660", "para_661" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment does not apply to “a private suit to", "paragraphs": [ "para_663", "para_664", "para_665" ] }, { "title": "These cases did not involve adjudications of the rights of", "paragraphs": [ "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671" ] }, { "title": "22 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_673", "para_674" ] }, { "title": "Like the dissent, the United States also attempts to limit", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Te-Moak, arguing that it applies only to cases in which the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States is a later purchaser of previously adjudicated", "paragraphs": [ "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681" ] }, { "title": "First, the United States is a later purchaser of previously", "paragraphs": [ "para_683", "para_684", "para_685" ] }, { "title": "Humboldt Decree, so it was subject to suits for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_687" ] }, { "title": "States acquired rights that had been previously adjudicated", "paragraphs": [ "para_689", "para_690" ] }, { "title": "See Te-Moak, 339 F.3d at 807. Indeed, forcing the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States to take the bitter with the sweet was one of the key", "paragraphs": [ "para_693" ] }, { "title": "United States of sovereign immunity in state water rights", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "6 The district court found the United States’ acquisition of decreed rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_696" ] }, { "title": "United States’ reserved water rights” and “do not stem from the United", "paragraphs": [ "para_698" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs are suing to enforce their own rights under the Baker-Lehman", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Decree. Plaintiffs are not bringing any claims regarding the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States’ reserved rights; it is the United States that now alleges the", "paragraphs": [ "para_702" ] }, { "title": "Adjudication was not comprehensive. The water rights that Plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_704", "para_705" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 23", "paragraphs": [ "para_707", "para_708", "para_709" ] }, { "title": "82d Cong. 44 (1951) (statement of Rep. Yorty) (the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States “should take the same disabilities as well as take the", "paragraphs": [ "para_712", "para_713" ] }, { "title": "Decree; the United States must therefore respect the water", "paragraphs": [ "para_715" ] }, { "title": "Second, even if the United States had not purchased", "paragraphs": [ "para_717", "para_718", "para_719" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court had no issue applying the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment when the United States held pre-McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment reserved rights, just as it does here. See Eagle", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cnty., 401 U.S. at 523 (holding that the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment waived sovereign immunity where the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States held “reserved waters for the White River National", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Forest, withdrawn in 1905”). And nothing in Te-Moak’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_727" ] }, { "title": "States is a later purchaser of adjudicated rights. See 339 F.3d", "paragraphs": [ "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735" ] }, { "title": "24 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "C. Baker Ranches is Suing for the Administration of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Water Rights", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The McCarran Amendment “only controls in cases", "paragraphs": [ "para_740", "para_741" ] }, { "title": "946 (9th Cir. 2022) (alterations in original). The United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States argues that even if the Baker-Lehman Adjudication", "paragraphs": [ "para_744", "para_745", "para_746" ] }, { "title": "It is clearly administration of a decree “to execute [that", "paragraphs": [ "para_748", "para_749" ] }, { "title": "Delta Water Agency v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 767 F.2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "531, 541 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (quoting United", "paragraphs": [ "para_752" ] }, { "title": "Many of Plaintiffs’ requests for relief are simply requests to", "paragraphs": [ "para_754" ] }, { "title": "Decree provides that “each and every water user of the Baker", "paragraphs": [ "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs also request more extensive relief, including", "paragraphs": [ "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 25", "paragraphs": [ "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774" ] }, { "title": "Ranches’ decreed water rights, and in fact one that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Decree itself contemplated. To protect decreed rights, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Decree required every water user to", "paragraphs": [ "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785" ] }, { "title": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Baker-Lehman Adjudication was “comprehensive,”", "paragraphs": [ "para_788", "para_789", "para_790" ] }, { "title": "States’ sovereign immunity from this suit.7", "paragraphs": [ "para_792" ] }, { "title": "7 The dissent suggests that our interpretation of the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment’s scope serves to “sanction . . . unprecedented disruption of", "paragraphs": [ "para_795" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs’ claims, but merely hold that the suit is not barred by sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_797" ] }, { "title": "26 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "I respectfully but emphatically dissent from the majority", "paragraphs": [ "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806" ] }, { "title": "This case involves competing water rights originating", "paragraphs": [ "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812" ] }, { "title": "In 1925, and in accordance with applicable Nevada", "paragraphs": [ "para_814", "para_815", "para_816" ] }, { "title": "Lehman Creeks. The State Engineer published notice to", "paragraphs": [ "para_818" ] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Creeks that they were required to file a claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_820", "para_821" ] }, { "title": "1 The majority opinion repeatedly references the absence of the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States from the Nevada proceedings. See e.g., Majority Opinion, p. 11", "paragraphs": [ "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 27", "paragraphs": [ "para_832" ] }, { "title": "16, 1934.2 It is this Decree that forms the basis for the claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_834" ] }, { "title": "Under the auspices of the Baker-Lehman Decree, Baker", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ranches has trespassed onto United States park land and", "paragraphs": [ "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841" ] }, { "title": "Baker Ranches sought an order in Nevada state court to", "paragraphs": [ "para_843", "para_844" ] }, { "title": "Baker Ranches, obstruct waterflow. Baker Ranches also", "paragraphs": [ "para_846" ] }, { "title": "Lehman Decree@). However, because these proceedings occurred prior", "paragraphs": [ "para_848" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment, the Nevada courts had no jurisdiction to", "paragraphs": [ "para_850" ] }, { "title": "States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (AAny claim for which", "paragraphs": [ "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856" ] }, { "title": "2 It is undisputed that the Baker-Lehman Decree did not adjudicate the", "paragraphs": [ "para_858" ] }, { "title": "(commenting that the reserved water rights of the United States Awere", "paragraphs": [ "para_860" ] }, { "title": "3 The United States makes a plausible argument that the trespass onto", "paragraphs": [ "para_862", "para_863" ] }, { "title": "United States did not waive its sovereign immunity, I do not address this", "paragraphs": [ "para_865" ] }, { "title": "28 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_867" ] }, { "title": "National Park, all in an effort to increase the waterflow onto", "paragraphs": [ "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872" ] }, { "title": "United States from planting vegetation in the riparian", "paragraphs": [ "para_874", "para_875", "para_876" ] }, { "title": "United States vehemently challenges these requests on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_878", "para_879", "para_880" ] }, { "title": "We start from the unquestioned premise Athat the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit", "paragraphs": [ "para_883", "para_884" ] }, { "title": "Importantly, A[w]e strictly construe in favor of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_886" ] }, { "title": "Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also", "paragraphs": [ "para_888" ] }, { "title": "830 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), affirmed by", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "California v. United States, 490 U.S. 920 (1989) (per", "paragraphs": [ "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 29", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Because the majority and Bakers Ranches are of the view", "paragraphs": [ "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902" ] }, { "title": "The McCarran Amendment provides in pertinent part:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Suits for adjudication of water rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_905" ] }, { "title": "Consent is given to join the United States", "paragraphs": [ "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915" ] }, { "title": "The United States, when a party to any such", "paragraphs": [ "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926", "para_927" ] }, { "title": "30 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "It is crucial to acknowledge that the provisions of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment apply only when the United States is", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Aa party@ to the proceeding adjudicating or administering", "paragraphs": [ "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941", "para_942" ] }, { "title": "Without addressing the plain language of the statute, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_944" ] }, { "title": "Ain favor of the government;@ id., the majority nevertheless", "paragraphs": [ "para_946" ] }, { "title": "States= sovereign immunity. See Majority Opinion, pp. 15-", "paragraphs": [ "para_948" ] }, { "title": "As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment Awaives sovereign immunity only for", "paragraphs": [ "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955" ] }, { "title": "6 Interestingly, the majority cites Orff for this proposition, but makes no", "paragraphs": [ "para_957", "para_958", "para_959" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 31", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "It appears that the majority uses the term", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Acomprehensive@ in the sense of a state regulatory scheme", "paragraphs": [ "para_963" ] }, { "title": "Majority Opinion, p. 16. However, we have more precisely", "paragraphs": [ "para_965", "para_966", "para_967" ] }, { "title": "The majority takes issue with the conclusion that a water", "paragraphs": [ "para_969", "para_970" ] }, { "title": "Opinion, p. 17. But this conclusion is embodied in our", "paragraphs": [ "para_972" ] }, { "title": "758, 768-69 (9th Cir. 1994) (A[T]he United States refers to", "paragraphs": [ "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980" ] }, { "title": "21-22. But see State of Oregon, 44 F.3d at 768 (citing to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dugan as one of the cases making Aclear that the [water]", "paragraphs": [ "para_983", "para_984" ] }, { "title": "The majority also seeks to distinguish Orff. See Majority", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Opinion, pp. 20-21. However, it is undeniable that in Orff", "paragraphs": [ "para_987", "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991" ] }, { "title": "32 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_993", "para_994" ] }, { "title": "In Orff, we addressed a dispute between the Westlands", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Water District and the United States. In discussing whether", "paragraphs": [ "para_997" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment,@ id. at 1143, we held that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment only authorizes actions Ato", "paragraphs": [ "para_1000" ] }, { "title": "(citation omitted) (emphasis added). We relied upon", "paragraphs": [ "para_1002", "para_1003" ] }, { "title": "In Metropolitan Water Dist., which was affirmed by the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Supreme Court, we addressed a challenge to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1006", "para_1007" ] }, { "title": "830 F.2d at 140. The resurveying affected the water supply", "paragraphs": [ "para_1009" ] }, { "title": "Indian Tribe, including the Metropolitan Water District. See", "paragraphs": [ "para_1011" ] }, { "title": "One of the jurisdictional bases asserted by the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1013" ] }, { "title": "See id. at 142. In resolving this jurisdictional issue, we held", "paragraphs": [ "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 617-18) (emphasis added). Stated differently, if a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1019" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment provides no basis for jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [ "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023" ] }, { "title": "Amendment. In that case, some water rights claimants along", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 33", "paragraphs": [ "para_1026", "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court explained:", "paragraphs": [ "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment] at length. It is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1045" ] }, { "title": "McCarran amendment relied upon by the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1047" ] }, { "title": "United States may be joined in suits for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1049", "para_1050", "para_1051" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 617-18 (citation, footnote reference, and internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_1053" ] }, { "title": "7 Only the water claimants below the Friant Dam were parties to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1055" ] }, { "title": "34 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court explained that the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment was not applicable because the case before it", "paragraphs": [ "para_1059", "para_1060" ] }, { "title": "Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Session 9 (1951)) (emphasis", "paragraphs": [ "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064" ] }, { "title": "United States was not made a party to the proceedings", "paragraphs": [ "para_1066", "para_1067", "para_1068" ] }, { "title": "States, as we must, see Orff, 358 F.3d at 1142, see also", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Metropolitan Water Dist., 830 F.2d at 143, the Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court=s decision in Dugan compels the conclusion that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment did not waive the United States=", "paragraphs": [ "para_1073", "para_1074" ] }, { "title": "Circuit=s decision so holding). Accordingly, the majority=s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1076", "para_1077" ] }, { "title": "In Orff, we relied on Dugan and Metropolitan Water", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dist. in concluding that the action at issue was Anot the type", "paragraphs": [ "para_1080" ] }, { "title": "F.3d at 1143 & n.3. We followed our reasoning and that of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1082" ] }, { "title": "See Majority Opinion, p. 17 (citing Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. 525 (quoting", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Session 9)). However the majority", "paragraphs": [ "para_1085", "para_1086", "para_1087", "para_1088", "para_1089" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 35", "paragraphs": [ "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095" ] }, { "title": "We determined that Afinding otherwise and granting", "paragraphs": [ "para_1097", "para_1098", "para_1099", "para_1100", "para_1101" ] }, { "title": "Amendment to those cases that implicate the rights of all", "paragraphs": [ "para_1103", "para_1104", "para_1105" ] }, { "title": "None of the cases cited by the majority call into question", "paragraphs": [ "para_1107" ] }, { "title": "Engr. v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone", "paragraphs": [ "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111", "para_1112", "para_1113" ] }, { "title": "(holding only that the McCarran Amendment applies", "paragraphs": [ "para_1115", "para_1116" ] }, { "title": "Amendment does not apply absent adjudication of the claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_1118" ] }, { "title": "Metropolitan Water Dist. and Dugan Awhich expressly limit", "paragraphs": [ "para_1120", "para_1121", "para_1122", "para_1123" ] }, { "title": "36 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_1125" ] }, { "title": "Moak to be Acounter to the holdings of Metropolitan Water", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dist. and Dugan@ because there was no indication in Te-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Moak that less than all the claimed rights were administered", "paragraphs": [ "para_1129" ] }, { "title": "The other cases cited by the majority are similarly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1131", "para_1132", "para_1133" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, no issue arose of retroactive application of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1135" ] }, { "title": "See id. at 765-66 (analyzing whether AOregon=s adjudication", "paragraphs": [ "para_1137", "para_1138", "para_1139" ] }, { "title": "The majority reasons that the McCarran Amendment", "paragraphs": [ "para_1141", "para_1142", "para_1143" ] }, { "title": "Majority Opinion, pp. 19-20. This reasoning relies on Te-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Moak, the First Circuit=s decision in United States v. Puerto", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rico, 287 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2002), and the Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1147", "para_1148" ] }, { "title": "However, these cases do not support a conclusion that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States waived its sovereign immunity under the facts", "paragraphs": [ "para_1151" ] }, { "title": "As previously discussed, in Te-Moak, decided one year", "paragraphs": [ "para_1153", "para_1154", "para_1155", "para_1156" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 37", "paragraphs": [ "para_1158", "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162" ] }, { "title": "One year later in Orff, we expressly and explicitly held", "paragraphs": [ "para_1164", "para_1165", "para_1166" ] }, { "title": "(emphasis in the original). See also Metropolitan Water", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dist., 830 F.2d at 144 (concluding that the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment Aauthorize[s] . . . only suits to adjudicate the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1170", "para_1171" ] }, { "title": "The First Circuit=s decision actually supports the view of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1173", "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177" ] }, { "title": "(quoting United States v. Idaho, 508 U.S. 1, 7 (1993).9 In", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "9 United States v. Idaho involved a water rights adjudication commenced", "paragraphs": [ "para_1180" ] }, { "title": "States was joined as a party. See 508 U.S. at 4 (noting that the petition", "paragraphs": [ "para_1182", "para_1183", "para_1184" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, there was no occasion for the Supreme Court to address", "paragraphs": [ "para_1186", "para_1187", "para_1188" ] }, { "title": "Court of the Fifth Judicial District naming the United States and all other", "paragraphs": [ "para_1190" ] }, { "title": "38 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_1192", "para_1193", "para_1194", "para_1195" ] }, { "title": "Baker-Lehman Creeks suit was not Acommenced subsequent", "paragraphs": [ "para_1197", "para_1198" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, the First Circuit decision does not support a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1200" ] }, { "title": "Finally, in Eagle County II, the United States argued that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1202", "para_1203" ] }, { "title": "Aonly for the adjudication of water rights which the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States acquired pursuant to state law,@ rather than Areserved", "paragraphs": [ "para_1206" ] }, { "title": "401 U.S. 522-23. The Supreme Court rejected this", "paragraphs": [ "para_1208", "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211", "para_1212", "para_1213", "para_1214", "para_1215", "para_1216", "para_1217", "para_1218" ] }, { "title": "525-26 (AThe absence of owners of previously decreed rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_1220", "para_1221", "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 39", "paragraphs": [ "para_1226", "para_1227", "para_1228", "para_1229", "para_1230", "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234", "para_1235", "para_1236" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 526 n. 7 (quoting United States v. District Ct. in and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1238", "para_1239" ] }, { "title": "The Colorado Supreme Court in Eagle County I", "paragraphs": [ "para_1241", "para_1242", "para_1243", "para_1244" ] }, { "title": "458 P.2d at 771. The Colorado Supreme Court noted that in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1246", "para_1247" ] }, { "title": "Abe attacked after four years and in a subsequent water", "paragraphs": [ "para_1249", "para_1250" ] }, { "title": "The Colorado Supreme Court observed that the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States quoted from Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558, 571-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "72 (1936), that Ano decree rendered in its absence can bind", "paragraphs": [ "para_1254" ] }, { "title": "40 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Colorado Supreme Court further quoted the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States= brief:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "It is self-evident that supplemental water", "paragraphs": [ "para_1259" ] }, { "title": "United States has consented. It would be", "paragraphs": [ "para_1261", "para_1262", "para_1263", "para_1264" ] }, { "title": "Such a holding would convert [the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment] into an instrument of injustice", "paragraphs": [ "para_1267" ] }, { "title": "States. It is for this reason that [the McCarran", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amendment] consents only to an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272" ] }, { "title": "The Colorado Supreme Court responded to the United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States= argument by stating that the language quoted from", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arizona v. California Awas not made in connection with an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1276", "para_1277", "para_1278", "para_1279", "para_1280" ] }, { "title": "10 Arizona v. California involved an original petition to the United States", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court to fix Athe quantum of Arizona=s equitable share of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1283", "para_1284" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 41", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court professed its belief: AOffhand, we are inclined to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1287" ] }, { "title": "The Colorado Supreme Court then referenced one of its", "paragraphs": [ "para_1289" ] }, { "title": "476 (Colo. 1947) (en banc) for the proposition that Ato the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1291", "para_1292", "para_1293", "para_1294" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court opined: AIt may well be that the same", "paragraphs": [ "para_1296", "para_1297", "para_1298", "para_1299" ] }, { "title": "It was in this context that the United States Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court in Eagle County II characterized the government=s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1302", "para_1303" ] }, { "title": "In sum, the context in Eagle County II involved:", "paragraphs": [ "para_1305", "para_1306", "para_1307", "para_1308", "para_1309", "para_1310", "para_1311", "para_1312", "para_1313" ] }, { "title": "42 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_1315" ] }, { "title": "See Eagle Cnty. I at 770.11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In contrast, Baker Ranches is seeking to enforce an initial", "paragraphs": [ "para_1318", "para_1319", "para_1320", "para_1321", "para_1322" ] }, { "title": "II is not governing precedent for this case. Rather, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court=s decision in Dugan, and our binding", "paragraphs": [ "para_1325", "para_1326", "para_1327" ] }, { "title": "Finally, the majority asserts that it would be Aabsurd@ to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1329", "para_1330" ] }, { "title": "However, those pre-McCarran Amendment decrees were", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Asettled@ at a time when the United States had not waived its", "paragraphs": [ "para_1333" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment, it does not apply when the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1335" ] }, { "title": "43 U.S.C. § 666 (AThe United States, when a party to any", "paragraphs": [ "para_1337", "para_1338" ] }, { "title": "617-18; Orff, 358 F.3d at 1141, 1143. This outcome is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1340" ] }, { "title": "McCarran Amendment strictly, narrowly, and in favor of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "11 This portion of Eagle County I refutes the majority=s assertion that Athe", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States was bound to respect the water rights determined in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1344" ] }, { "title": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 43", "paragraphs": [ "para_1346", "para_1347" ] }, { "title": "In any event, it was the decided intent of Congress that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1349", "para_1350" ] }, { "title": "County II, the United States Supreme Court noted that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Awhole community of claims is involved@ and quoted", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Senator McCarran, Chairman of the Committee reporting on", "paragraphs": [ "para_1354" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 525. Senator McCarran=s words reflect an express", "paragraphs": [ "para_1356", "para_1357" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court as stating that the McCarran Amendment:", "paragraphs": [ "para_1359", "para_1360", "para_1361", "para_1362", "para_1363", "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366", "para_1367", "para_1368", "para_1369", "para_1370", "para_1371", "para_1372" ] }, { "title": "And speaking of intent, it certainly was not the intent of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Congress that the McCarran Amendment be interpreted to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1375" ] }, { "title": "44 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraphs": [ "para_1377", "para_1378", "para_1379", "para_1380", "para_1381", "para_1382", "para_1383", "para_1384", "para_1385", "para_1386", "para_1387", "para_1388" ] }, { "title": "The district court got it right. The majority got it wrong. I", "paragraphs": [ "para_1390" ] }, { "title": "12 The majority attempts to deny the disastrous effect of its decision by", "paragraphs": [ "para_1392", "para_1393" ] }, { "title": "States to comply with the Baker-Lehman Creeks adjudication, the effect", "paragraphs": [ "para_1395" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC.; DAVID", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "JOHN ELDRIDGE; RUTH", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "ELDRIDGE, as Co-Trustees of the", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "David John Eldridge and Ruth", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Eldridge Family Living Trust dated", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "January 31, 2007; ZANE JORDAN;", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "JUDEE SCHALEY,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs - Appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "DOUG BURGUM, in his official", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "capacity as Secretary of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "States Department of the Interior;", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "OF THE INTERIOR; SHAWN", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "BENGE, in his official capacity as", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Acting Director of the National Park", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Service; NATIONAL PARK", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "SERVICE; ASHLEY ADAMS, in", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "her official capacity as", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Superintendent of the Great Basin", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "National Park,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Defendants - Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "No. 24-5713", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "D.C. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "3:21-cv-00150-", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "GMN-CSD", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "2 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "for the District of Nevada", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Argued and Submitted March 24, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Pasadena, California", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Filed September 30, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and John B. Owens, Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Judges, and Sidney A. Fitzwater, District Judge.*", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Opinion by Judge Owens;", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Dissent by Judge Rawlinson", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "SUMMARY**", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Sovereign Immunity / McCarran Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a suit", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "against federal defendants (“the United States”) for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "In 1934, a Nevada state court entered the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Lehmann Decree, setting out the water rights for the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Lehman Creeks, which flow through what is now the Great", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "Basin National Park. Under the Baker-Lehmann Decree,", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "* The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 3", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs, including Baker Ranches, Inc., own downstream", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "water rights. Plaintiffs alleged that the Park engaged in", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "activities that reduced water flow and jeopardized their water", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "rights. They sued the United States to enjoin such activities", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "and enforce their rights under the Decree.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs argued that the United States’ sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "immunity was waived by the McCarran Amendment, which", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "waives the sovereign immunity of the United States “in any", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "such rights, where it appears that the United States is the", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights.” 43", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 666(a). The McCarran Amendment was enacted in", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "1952 but retroactively applies to the administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "previously acquired water rights. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "determined that sovereign immunity was not waived by the", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment and dismissed Plaintiffs’ case for", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "lack of jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Reversing, the panel held that the McCarran Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "waived the United States’ sovereign immunity. First, the", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment waives sovereign immunity for the", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "administration of rights determined in a “comprehensive”", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "adjudication, and the Baker-Lehmann Decree was", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "comprehensive. The Baker-Lehman Adjudication was", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "meant to serve as a final determination of all relative water", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "rights upon the Baker-Lehman Creeks. Second, the", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment controls in cases adjudicating or", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "administering water rights, and Baker Ranches is suing for", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "the administration of water rights they hold under the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "Lehmann Decree. Accordingly, the panel held that the", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment waived the United States’ sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "immunity from this suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "4 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson would affirm the district", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "court’s determination that the sovereign immunity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "United States was not waived by the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "Amendment. Under the language of the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "Amendment, expressed legislative intent, Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "authority, and this Court’s precedent, the United States did", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "not waive its sovereign immunity for the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Creeks adjudication. Thus, the Baker Lehman Decree does", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "not bind the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Benjamin J. Hogan (argued), Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "LLP, Denver, Colorado; Jean-Claude Andre, Bryan Cave", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, California; Seth M.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Reid, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis,", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Missouri; Debbie Leonard, Leonard Law PC, Reno, Nevada;", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Kole W. Kelley and Ivan L. London, Mountain States Legal", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Ezekiel Peterson (argued) and Katharine Laubach,", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Attorneys, Environment & Natural Resources Division;", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Adam R.F. Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General;", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado;", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Karen Glasgow, Supervisory Attorney-Advisor, Office of", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "the Solicitor, United States Department of Interior, Denver,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Colorado; Andrew M. Bernie and Jason Lee, Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Attorneys; United States Department of Justice,", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Washington, D.C.; Holly A. Vance, Assistant United States", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United States", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "Department of Justice, Reno, Nevada; for Defendants-", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 5", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "J. Gregory Cloward, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey M.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Connor, Chief Deputy Solicitor General; Aaron M. Ford,", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Nevada Attorney General; Office of the Nevada Attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "General, Carson City, Nevada; for Amicus Curiae State of", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "Nevada.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "Laura A. Schroeder, Therese A. Ure Stix, and Caitlin R.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Skulan, Schroeder Law Offices PC, Portland, Oregon, for", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Amici Curiae Central Nevada Regional Water Authority,", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Humboldt County, Humboldt River Basin Water Authority,", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Nevada Association of County Commissioners, Nevada", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "Land Action Association, Nevada Grazing Board of District", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "No. 4, Pershing County, Pershing County, Pershing County", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Water Conservation District, The Rose of Snowville LLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Washoe County, and White Pine County.", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "David H. Rigdon, Taggart & Taggart LTD, Carson City,", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "Nevada, for Amici Curiae Western State Farm Bureau", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "Federations (Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Bureau Federation, and California Farm Bureau Federation).", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Karen A. Peterson and Keith H. Ketola, Carson City,", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Nevada; Theodore Beutel, Eureka County District Attorney,", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Eureka, Nevada; for Amicus Curiae Eureka County.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "6 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "OWENS, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Baker Ranches, Inc., David John Eldridge, Ruth", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "Eldridge, Zane Jordan, and Judee Schaley (collectively", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "their suit against federal defendants (“the United States”) for", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. We have", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "remand.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "In 1934, a Nevada state court entered a decree that set", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "out the water rights for the Baker-Lehman Creeks, which", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "flow through what is now Great Basin National Park (“the", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Park”), created in 1986. Under the so-called “Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Lehman Decree” (“Decree”), Plaintiffs own downstream", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "water rights. Baker Ranches has long used the water to", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "support its extensive ranch operations.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs allege that the Park has engaged in activities—", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "ranging from water diversion to planting vegetation—that", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "have reduced water flow and jeopardized their downstream", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "water rights, threatening to put Baker Ranches out of", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "business. Plaintiffs sued the United States to enjoin such", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "activities and enforce their rights under the Decree.", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "After extensive litigation in multiple forums, the district", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "court held that the United States enjoyed sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "immunity, meaning the state and federal courts lack subject", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "matter jurisdiction to enforce the Decree against the United", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "States. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "immunity was waived by the McCarran Amendment, which", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "was enacted in 1952 but retroactively applies to the", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 7", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "administration of previously acquired water rights. See State", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Indians of Nev. (Te-Moak), 339 F.3d 804, 811–13 (9th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "2003). We agree. To understand why, we begin with a brief", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "history of the development of water rights in the West and", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "the role of the McCarran Amendment.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "A. Development of Federal and Nevada Water Law", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "Water rights—crucial to the development of the land-", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "rich, water-poor American West—were initially adjudicated", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "through individual private actions. See 1 Robert E. Beck,", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Waters & Water Rights § 15.01 (2026). A claimant would", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "file a complaint asserting rights to a particular water source", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "and alleging interference by defendants, who would file", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "answers and cross-complaints asserting their own rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "But because the rights of all claimants to a particular water", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "source are closely interrelated, “[e]ach claimant is therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "directly and vitally interested, not only in establishing the", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "validity and extent of his own claim, but in having", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "determined all of the other claims” to that water source. Pac.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "Live Stock Co. v. Or. Water Bd., 241 U.S. 440, 449 (1916)", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "(citation omitted). As settlement boomed in the West,", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "conflicts over water rights increased, resulting in", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "voluminous piecemeal litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "The rights of all claimants to a particular water source", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "are “so closely related that the presence of all is essential”", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "for a final determination of any rights to that water source.", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "Id. But joinder of the “hundreds or thousands” of individual", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "claims to a water source would have been “extremely", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "cumbersome and inefficient.” United States v. Oregon, 44", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "F.3d 758, 763–64 (9th Cir. 1994). Several Western states,", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "including Nevada, attempted to solve the problem by", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "8 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "establishing statutory procedures to adjudicate all water", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "rights on entire stream systems at once.", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "In 1913, Nevada created its present statutory system for", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "the mass adjudication of surface water rights. See Act of", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "Mar. 22, 1913, ch. 140, 1913 Nev. Stat. 192 (codified as", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "amended at Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 533) (“1913 Nevada Water", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "Law”). Under this system, adjudication would proceed as", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "follows. The State Engineer initiates the process. Nev. Rev.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Stat. Ann. § 533.090. He provides notice of the proceedings,", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "gathers relevant stream flow data, collects proofs of", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "appropriation, hears objections, and enters an order of", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "determination “defining the several rights to the waters of", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "the stream or stream system.” Id. §§ 533.090, 533.095,", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "533.100, 533.160. After further notice and hearings, the", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "state district court affirms or modifies the Engineer’s order", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "in a decree setting out a “final” and “conclusive” distribution", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "of water rights. Id. §§ 533.185, 533.210. The rights set out", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "in that decree may then be enforced and administered by the", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Engineer and state water commissioners acting as officers of", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "the court. Id. § 533.220.", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "But one issue remained. “While these statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "adjudications seemed to promise an end to the confusing and", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "conflicting adjudication of water rights in multiple cases, the", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "system was impaired by the refusal of the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "government to participate.” Oregon, 44 F.3d at 765. The", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "United States claimed extensive water rights in the West,", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "yet—shielded by sovereign immunity—could refuse states’", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "attempts to adjudicate and administer those rights. States", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "found themselves unable to secure a final and conclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "determination of rights whenever the United States appeared", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "in a watershed. See S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 4", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "(1951). And the United States’ refusal to submit to state", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 9", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "court adjudication and administration provoked significant", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "political backlash.1", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "In 1952, Congress took action. It passed the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Amendment, which waives the sovereign immunity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "United States “in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "the administration of such rights, where it appears that the", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "water rights.” 43 U.S.C. § 666(a). The statute “applie[s]", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "retroactively and thus waive[s] the United States’ immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "from suit for the administration of water rights acquired", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "before the law came into effect.” Am. Indian Law Deskbook", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "§ 8:18 (2024) (citing Te-Moak, 339 F.3d at 813); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "1 One notable example was the federal government’s attempt to acquire", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "water rights in the Santa Margarita River watershed to support the", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "military establishment at Camp Pendleton. Locals who depended on the", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "water felt “subversively exploited” by the federal government’s water", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "grab. A Bill to Authorize Suits Against the United States to Adjudicate", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "& Administer Water Rights: Hearings on S.18 Before a Subcomm. of the", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 82d Cong. 77 (1951) (letter of George F.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Yackey, general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District). The", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "matter resulted in public outcry, spawning multiple articles and even a", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "short film produced and directed by Frank Capra. See, e.g., Stanley", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "High, Washington Tyranny: Another Case Study, Reader’s Digest, Dec.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "1951, reprinted in 98 Cong. Rec. 124 (1952); Frank Capra, The", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "Fallbrook Story (1952).", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "The United States was also involved in highly contentious water", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "controversies on the Quinn River in Nevada, and in several Colorado", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "water districts. See Hearings on S.18, 82d Cong. 47 (1951) (statement", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "of W.T. Mathews, Attorney General of the State of Nevada); id. at 26–", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "27 (statement of Glenn G. Saunders, representing the National", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Reclamation Association). These controversies, caused by the United", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "States’ use of its sovereign immunity to preclude the adjudication and", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "administration of the water rights it claimed, formed the backdrop to", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "Congress’ consideration of the McCarran Amendment.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "10 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "United States v. Puerto Rico, 287 F.3d 212, 217 (1st Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "2002) (“[T]he McCarran Amendment applies to water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "acquired prior to 1952 . . . .”); United States v. Dist. Ct. in &", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "for Eagle Cnty. (Eagle Cnty.), 401 U.S. 520, 522–23 (1971)", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "(applying the McCarran Amendment when the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "claimed reserved rights acquired in 1905).", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "The McCarran Amendment was introduced to correct the", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "“chaotic condition” caused by the United States’ refusal to", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "participate in the statutory procedures designed to adjudicate", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "and administer at once all the interlocked water rights on a", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "stream system, which threatened “a throw-back to the", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "conditions that brought about the enactment of the statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "water laws.” S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1951).", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Being focused on the “evils growing out of [the United", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "States’] immunity” from proceedings in which “all water", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "users on a stream . . . are interested and necessary parties,”", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "the bill was not intended to waive the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "immunity from private suits. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "For instance, in response to concerns that individuals", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "might use the bill to block the construction of projects by the", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "Bureau of Reclamation, Senator Pat McCarran—the bill’s", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "Senate sponsor and namesake—assured that it was “not", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "intended to be used for the purpose of obstructing or", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "delaying Bureau of Reclamation projects.” Id at 9. Indeed,", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "he clarified that the Amendment’s waiver of immunity was", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "“not intended to be used for any other purpose than to allow", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "the United States to be joined in a suit wherein it is necessary", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "to adjudicate all of the rights of various owners on a given", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "stream.” Id. at 9. Adopting this intended limit, our courts", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "have since held that the McCarran Amendment only allows", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "the United States to be joined in suits involving a", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "“comprehensive water right adjudication.” Oregon, 44 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "at 766 (quoting United States v. Idaho, 508 U.S. 1, 9 (1993)).", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 11", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "B. Water Rights on the Baker-Lehman Creeks", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "1. The Baker-Lehman Adjudication and Decree", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "More than two decades before the passage of the", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment, the State Engineer of Nevada in", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "1925 initiated a determination of water rights on the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "Lehman Creeks (“Baker-Lehman Adjudication”). The", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "adjudication took place according to the procedures laid out", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "in the 1913 Nevada Water Law, Nevada’s statutory system", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "for the mass adjudication of water rights. See Nev. Rev. Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "ch. 533. The United States did not participate or assert any", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "claims. After publishing notices and collecting claimants’", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "proofs of appropriation, the State Engineer issued his order", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "of determination nearly eight years after the adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "began. A copy of the order of determination was mailed to", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "all claimants, and to the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "After the State Engineer filed the order of determination", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "in the Seventh Judicial District Court of Nevada, the state", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "court scheduled a hearing for interested parties to raise", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "exceptions to the order of determination. Copies of the", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "scheduling order were mailed to the claimants and to the", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "United States, and published in a local newspaper. Again,", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "the United States did not participate.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Finally, on October 16, 1934, the state court entered the", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Decree. Applications to modify the decree", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "were to be submitted within three years of its entry. See Nev.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Rev. Stat. § 533.210. Under Nevada law, this decree was to", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "be a final determination of water rights on the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "Lehman Creeks. Id. Any future rights claimed on the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Lehman Creeks could only be adjudicated in a", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "“supplemental adjudication,” which under state law may not", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "disturb any existing rights under the 1934 Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "Decree. See Mineral County v. Lyon County, 473 P.3d 418,", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "12 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "429 (Nev. 2020) (observing that Nevada’s water law", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "“expressly prohibits reallocating adjudicated water rights”).", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "The Baker-Lehman Decree provided, in part, that “each", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "and every water user of the Baker and Lehman Creeks", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "stream system . . . be perpetually enjoined and restrained”", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "from “diverting or using or preventing or obstructing the", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "flow . . . of any of the water” except in the manner provided", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "for by the Decree. It further required every water user to", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "“keep . . . the main stream channel through his land[ ]", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "reasonably clean of weeds, vegetation, and deposits of silt”", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "and “maintain” the channels to facilitate “minimum loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "conveyed water.”", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "2. The Parties’ Water Rights", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "Under the Baker-Lehman Decree, Baker Ranches holds", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "adjudicated water rights with a priority date between 1872", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "and 1904; David John Eldridge and Ruth Eldridge hold", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "rights with a priority date of 1872; and Zane Jordan and", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Judee Schaley hold water rights with a priority date of 1876.", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "The United States claims two types of water rights on the", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Creeks. First, it holds appropriative rights", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "set out in the Baker-Lehman Decree, which it acquired from", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "private appropriators. Second, the United States now claims", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "reserved water rights, which it never asserted before the", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "instant litigation and were not adjudicated or recognized in", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "the Baker-Lehman Decree. These reserved water rights stem", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "from various reservations of land made in the twentieth", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "century.2 The earliest of these reservations dates to 1909,", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "2 When the United States withdraws land from the public domain and", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "reserves it for a federal purpose, we understand it to reserve enough", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "water to carry out the purpose of the reservation. See Winters v. United", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "States, 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908). Reserved water rights vest, or have a", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 13", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "when the federal government reserved approximately", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "556,000 acres to establish the Nevada National Forest. See", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "Proclamation No. 839, 35 Stat. 2220 (Feb. 10, 1909).", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Additional reservations were made in 1922, for the Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "Caves National Monument, and in 1986, to create Great", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "Basin National Park. See Proclamation No. 1618, 42 Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "2260 (Jan. 24, 1922); Great Basin National Park Act of 1986,", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Pub. L. No. 99-565, § 2, 100 Stat. 3181 (Oct. 27, 1986).", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "3. The Instant Litigation", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "When Plaintiffs first began appropriating water from the", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Creeks, the streams flowed through land in", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "the public domain. Now, the streams originate in and run", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "through Great Basin National Park. Plaintiffs allege that the", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Park’s activities—diverting water for campgrounds and dust", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "suppression, felling logs that block creek channels, and", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "planting vegetation—have reduced water flow, impairing", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "the rights of downstream water users like themselves.", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "In 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit in Nevada state court to", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "enjoin these activities and enforce the water rights they hold", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "under the Baker-Lehman Decree. The United States", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "removed the suit to federal district court and claimed", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity, and litigation commenced regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "the proper forum for the case. In an earlier unpublished", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "disposition, we held that the state court had prior exclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "jurisdiction only if the United States had waived sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "immunity, and directed the district court to consider whether", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity was waived under the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "Amendment. See Baker Ranches, Inc. v. Haaland, Nos. 22-", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "priority date, on the date of the federal reservation. See Cappaert v.", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976).", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "14 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "15765, 22-15846, 2023 WL 6784357 (9th Cir. Oct. 13,", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "2023).3", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "The district court determined that sovereign immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "was not waived by the McCarran Amendment and dismissed", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "the case for lack of jurisdiction. It concluded that because", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "the United States did not participate in the 1934 Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "Lehman Adjudication, it was not a “comprehensive", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "adjudication” for which the McCarran Amendment waives", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity. It did not reach the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "separate argument that the McCarran Amendment did not", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "apply because Plaintiffs’ suit was not one for the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "“administration” of water rights. Plaintiffs timely appealed", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "the district court’s dismissal. We take up the question of", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "whether the McCarran Amendment waives the United", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "States’ sovereign immunity in this case, and we hold that it", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "does.", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "II. DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "A. Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "“We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "of subject matter jurisdiction, including whether the United", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "States has waived its sovereign immunity.” Harger v. Dep’t", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "3 Litigation has since proceeded concurrently in federal and state court.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "The state court found that the McCarran Amendment waived sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "immunity and ultimately issued orders holding the United States in", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "contempt of the Baker-Lehman Decree and granting Baker Ranches", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "access to Park land to maintain the streams. The United States appealed", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "these orders to the Nevada Supreme Court, which held that it lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "jurisdiction due to this court’s previous decision vacating the district", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "court’s remand to state court. See Haaland v. Baker Ranches Inc., 560", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "P.3d 664 (Nev. 2024) (unpublished table decision). It dismissed the", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "appeal without prejudice, and the United States may move for", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "reinstatement should the case be remanded back to state court from the", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "federal district court. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 15", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "of Lab., 569 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2009). A waiver of", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally expressed,” and", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "the party suing the United States “bears the burden of", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "pointing to such an unequivocal waiver of immunity.”", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (per", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "curiam) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535,", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "538 (1980)).", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "B. The Baker-Lehman Decree Was Comprehensive", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "The McCarran Amendment waives sovereign immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "only for the administration of rights determined in a", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "“comprehensive” adjudication. See Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "524 (“‘[T]he administration of such rights’ in § 666(a)(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "must refer to the rights described in” § 666(a)(1).); Idaho,", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "508 U.S. at 3 (the United States may be joined “as a", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "defendant in a comprehensive water right adjudication”).", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs sued to enforce rights determined by the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "Lehman Adjudication between 1925 and 1934, years before", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "the passage of the McCarran Amendment would have", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "required the United States to participate. Because the United", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "States was not a party and the reserved rights it asserts today", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "were not determined in the adjudication, the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "and the dissent argue that the Baker-Lehman Adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "was not “comprehensive.”", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "But this reasoning distorts the meaning and purpose of", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "the requirement that adjudications be “comprehensive.”", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "This requirement—which does not appear in the text of the", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "statute—was imposed by courts to reflect the purpose of the", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment. See Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609,", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "618 (1963) (citing S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 9", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "(1951)); see also Oregon, 44 F.3d at 766. “The clear federal", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "policy evinced by [the McCarran Amendment] is the", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "avoidance of piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "16 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "river system . . . . [T]he McCarran Amendment bespeaks a", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "policy that recognizes the availability of comprehensive", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "state systems for adjudication of water rights as the means", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "for achieving these goals.” Colo. River Water Conservation", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 819 (1976) (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "added). Because the McCarran Amendment exists to", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "support “comprehensive state systems for adjudication,” its", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "waiver of sovereign immunity is construed to extend only to", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "adjudications that take place in that context. Id. By contrast,", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "“piecemeal, private water rights litigation”—the types of", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "suits that the McCarran Amendment was intended to help", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "comprehensive state systems replace—sit outside the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "the McCarran Amendment. Oregon, 44 F.3d at 768.", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "The 1913 Nevada Water Law is clearly one of those", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "“comprehensive state systems” that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "Amendment was meant to support. Our caselaw has", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "recognized it as such. See Te-Moak, 339 F.3d at 811", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "(describing the law as “Nevada’s comprehensive system for", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "adjudicating water rights”). It replaced piecemeal", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "adjudications by providing a comprehensive procedure for", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "the collection, adjudication, and final determination of all", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "rights to water on a stream system. See Nev. Rev. Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "§§ 533.087-533.320. Those claiming a right to water must", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "submit proof of their claim, or the claim will be deemed", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "abandoned. See id. § 533.087. Nor could the system", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "function any other way: claims that are not asserted cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "be allowed to linger, as that would undermine the certainty", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "and finality that these adjudications were meant to establish.", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "Over the course of nine years, the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "Adjudication was conducted scrupulously according to the", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "procedures laid out in the 1913 Nevada Water Law. The", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "State Engineer and the Seventh Judicial District Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "Nevada repeatedly provided notice to all claimants and to the", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 17", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "United States. The United States chose not to assert any", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "claims, raise any exceptions, or apply for any modifications", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "to the resulting Baker-Lehman Decree. A claimant’s failure", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "to assert its alleged water rights during an adjudication does", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "not render the adjudication any less “comprehensive,” in the", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "sense that the drafters of the McCarran Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "intended.", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "Regardless of the United States’ failure to claim the", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "reserved rights that it alleges today, the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "Adjudication was meant to serve as a final determination of", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "all relative water rights upon the Baker-Lehman Creeks,", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "meaning it was “necessary to adjudicate all of the rights of", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "various owners” to avoid the sort of piecemeal litigation that", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "existed before such statutory mass adjudications were", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "possible. Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. at 525 (quoting S. Rep. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 9). It was therefore precisely the", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "sort of “comprehensive” adjudication that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "Amendment was meant to support. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "According to the United States, an adjudication is not", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "comprehensive unless it is “able to determine all claims in a", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "river system, including those of the United States where it", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "has some water rights.” The dissent goes even further,", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "asserting that an adjudication is not comprehensive unless it", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "in fact did “resolve the rights of all claimants to a stream of", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "water.” Under these readings, the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "Adjudication was not comprehensive because it took place", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "while the United States still enjoyed sovereign immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "from water rights adjudications, and the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "reserved water rights went unadjudicated. The United States", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "argues that applying the McCarran Amendment here would", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "be unfair, as it would “cause the retroactive forfeiture of all", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "federal claims and defenses . . . that the United States could", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "18 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "have presented had there been a waiver of sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "immunity at the time of the adjudication.”", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "But the United States’ argument runs headlong against", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "the purpose of the McCarran Amendment and our caselaw,", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "which has repeatedly warned against narrowing the", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "Amendment based on “extremely technical” constructions", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "of the comprehensiveness requirement. Eagle Cnty., 401", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "U.S. at 525; see also Oregon, 44 F.3d at 768. The McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "Amendment was motivated by Congress’ concern that “the", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "United States not be subjected to piecemeal, private water", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "rights litigation,” and “[t]he comprehensiveness standard", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "requires the consolidation of existing controversies, not the", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "reopening of settled determinations.” Oregon, 44 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "768 (first citing Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. at 525; and then citing", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "United States v. Dist. Ct. for Water Div. No. 5, 401 U.S. 527,", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "529 (1971)).", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "The United States would instead have us reopen a settled", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "determination that has stood for decades. Indeed, sixty-", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "seven decrees in Nevada pre-date the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "Amendment’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and the United", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "States’ argument undermines the finality of each of them.", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "The United States suggests that because these adjudications", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "took place before the passage of the McCarran Amendment,", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "it has the right to assert, at any time—even centuries from", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "now—any previously-unadjudicated claim to water rights,", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "regardless of how long it has sat on those alleged rights. This", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "would mean that none of those sixty-seven pre-McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "Amendment decrees can be considered settled. It would be", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "absurd to wring this result out of a requirement crafted by", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "courts to further the McCarran Amendment’s purpose of", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "ending piecemeal adjudications and the interminable water", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "rights conflicts they engendered. See, e.g., Oregon, 44 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "at 768; Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. at 525.", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 19", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "Furthermore, retroactively applying the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "Amendment is no issue. The United States argues that it", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "cannot be bound to respect water rights determined in an", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "adjudication where it did not have the opportunity to raise", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "potential claims and defenses. But the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "rejected that argument in Eagle County, holding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "United States could be joined in a supplemental adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "despite not being a party to the preceding adjudication. See", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "401 U.S. at 525-26. Because the supplemental adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "could not unsettle rights determined in the preceding", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "adjudication, the United States was bound to respect the", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "water rights determined in the preceding adjudication, where", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "it—like here—did not have the opportunity to raise potential", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "claims or defenses.4 See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "Moreover, we have squarely held, for decades, that “the", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment waives the United States’s immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "from suit, not only for the administration of water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "acquired after the statute’s enactment, but also for the", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "4 That supplemental adjudications may not unsettle rights determined", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "under previous mass adjudications further undermines the United States’", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "argument that it is unfair to bind it to the results of an adjudication it", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "chose not to take part in. The United States suggests that anyone who", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "owns water rights under the sixty-seven pre-McCarran Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "decrees should simply seek a supplemental adjudication to determine the", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "United States’ reserved rights. But because rights determined in those", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "supplemental adjudications could not supplant any previously", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "adjudicated rights, this would place the United States in precisely the", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "same position—bound to respect the results of the preceding", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "adjudications, which it did not participate in. See Nev. Rev. Stat.", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "§ 533.210(1) (decrees entered pursuant to the 1913 Water Law are", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "“final” and “conclusive”); Mineral County, 473 P.3d at 429 (Nevada’s", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "water law “expressly prohibits reallocating adjudicated water rights that", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "have not been abandoned, forfeited, or otherwise lost pursuant to an", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "express statutory provision”).", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "20 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "administration of water rights acquired before the law came", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "into effect.” Te-Moak, 339 F.3d at 813. In that case, we", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "found no issue with applying the McCarran Amendment to", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "waive the United States’ immunity from administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "the pre-McCarran Amendment Humboldt Decree. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "811-13. The Supreme Court likewise found the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Amendment applicable even when the underlying federal", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "water rights were acquired in 1905, nearly a half-century", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "before the passage of the McCarran Amendment. See Eagle", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "Cnty., 401 U.S. at 523. And the First Circuit has", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "independently come to a similar conclusion, holding that", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "“the McCarran Amendment applies to water rights acquired", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "prior to 1952, as long as the suit against the government is", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "commenced subsequent to that date.” Puerto Rico, 287 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "at 217.", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "The dissent acknowledges that Te-Moak holds “that the", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment applies retroactively.” But it claims", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "that Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004), a", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "case that “[t]ellingly . . . did not discuss or distinguish Te-", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "Moak,” constitutes binding precedent requiring “that the", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment does not apply absent adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "of the claims of all parties.”", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "Orff and Te-Moak are in fact distinguishable for an", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "important reason: Orff, unlike Te-Moak, is not a McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "Amendment case. The plaintiffs in Orff “did not even plead", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "jurisdiction under the McCarran Amendment.” 358 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "1144. Tellingly, neither the United States nor the district", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "court found it necessary to discuss Orff’s implications on the", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "instant litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "Orff involved a 1963 contract between the Westlands", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "Water District and the United States. See id. at 1141. The", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "dispute was whether the United States had waived its", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 21", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity under a different statute, 43 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "§ 390uu. See id. at 1144. We discussed the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "Amendment solely to reject the plaintiffs’ argument that a", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "prior McCarran Amendment case precluded the United", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "States from asserting sovereign immunity under this", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "different statute.5 See id. at 1142-43. We explained that the", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment did not apply in Orff because it", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "concerned a “private lawsuit for damages between the", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "farmers and the government.” Id. at 1143. Simply put, we", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "conclude that the clear retroactivity language of Te-Moak,", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "which is a McCarran Amendment case, speaks far louder", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "than anything in Orff, which is not.", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "The dissent cites Metropolitan Water Dist. and Dugan", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "for the same proposition as Orff: that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "Amendment applies solely to adjudications of the rights of", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "all claimants on a stream. But those cases clarify only that,", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "consistent with the McCarran Amendment’s purpose, the", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "private lawsuits involved in those cases were not", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "comprehensive. See Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal. v. United", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "States, 830 F.2d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment “does not authorize private suits to", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "decide priorities between the United States and particular", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "claimants”); Dugan, 372 U.S. at 618 (holding that the", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment does not apply to “a private suit to", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "determine water rights solely between the respondents and", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "the United States”). Neither case imposes a requirement that", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "a comprehensive adjudication include all possible claimants.", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "These cases did not involve adjudications of the rights of", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "5 In that prior case, the district court applied the McCarran Amendment,", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "rejecting the United States’ argument that it did not apply “because all", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "of the claimants to water from a given stream [were] not defendants in", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "the action.” Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 491 F.", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "Supp. 263, 266 (E.D. Cal. 1980).", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "22 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "multiple parties like those at issue in Te-Moak and Eagle", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Cnty.", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "Like the dissent, the United States also attempts to limit", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "Te-Moak, arguing that it applies only to cases in which the", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "United States is a later purchaser of previously adjudicated", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "rights. It insists that the McCarran Amendment cannot be", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "retroactive in the instant case, where the United States is", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "claiming unadjudicated reserved rights. This argument fails", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "twice over.", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "First, the United States is a later purchaser of previously", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "adjudicated rights, which it holds in addition to the reserved", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "rights it now claims. In Te-Moak, the United States acquired", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "rights that had previously been adjudicated under the", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "Humboldt Decree, so it was subject to suits for the", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "administration of the Humboldt Decree; here, the United", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "States acquired rights that had been previously adjudicated", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "under the Baker-Lehman Decree, so it should be subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "suits for the administration of the Baker-Lehman Decree.6", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "See Te-Moak, 339 F.3d at 807. Indeed, forcing the United", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "States to take the bitter with the sweet was one of the key", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "purposes of the McCarran Amendment: in stripping the", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "United States of sovereign immunity in state water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "6 The district court found the United States’ acquisition of decreed rights", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "“irrelevant to this case” because Baker Ranches’ claims “relate[d] to the", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "United States’ reserved water rights” and “do not stem from the United", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "States’ acquired decreed rights.” We disagree with this reasoning.", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs are suing to enforce their own rights under the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "Decree. Plaintiffs are not bringing any claims regarding the United", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "States’ reserved rights; it is the United States that now alleges the", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "existence of reserved water rights to claim that the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "Adjudication was not comprehensive. The water rights that Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "seek to enforce are interconnected with all other water rights on the", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Creeks.", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 23", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "proceedings, Congress sought to prevent it from receiving", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "the protection of state water law on one hand while flouting", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "it with impunity on the other. See, e.g., Hearings on S.18,", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "82d Cong. 44 (1951) (statement of Rep. Yorty) (the United", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "States “should take the same disabilities as well as take the", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "benefits” of private appropriators). The United States’ own", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "water rights enjoy the protection of the Baker-Lehman", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "Decree; the United States must therefore respect the water", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "rights of others under the very same Decree.", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "Second, even if the United States had not purchased", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "rights adjudicated under the Baker-Lehman Decree, the", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "distinction that the United States attempts to draw between", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "reserved rights and adjudicated rights is untenable. The", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "Supreme Court had no issue applying the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "Amendment when the United States held pre-McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "Amendment reserved rights, just as it does here. See Eagle", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "Cnty., 401 U.S. at 523 (holding that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "Amendment waived sovereign immunity where the United", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "States held “reserved waters for the White River National", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "Forest, withdrawn in 1905”). And nothing in Te-Moak’s", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "reasoning limited its holding to cases where the United", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "States is a later purchaser of adjudicated rights. See 339 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "at 812–13 (reasoning that a waiver of sovereign immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "does not implicate the fair notice concerns associated with", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "retroactively applying laws governing the conduct of private", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "citizens, and the Amendment’s use of the present tense", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "indicates that Congress intended it to be applied", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "retroactively). No courts or commentators have read Te-", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "Moak as the government suggests.", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "24 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "C. Baker Ranches is Suing for the Administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "Water Rights", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "The McCarran Amendment “only controls in cases", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "‘adjudicati[ng]’ or ‘administ[ering]’ water rights.” Klamath", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "Irrigation Dist. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 48 F.4th 934,", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "946 (9th Cir. 2022) (alterations in original). The United", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "States argues that even if the Baker-Lehman Adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "was comprehensive, the McCarran Amendment does not", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "apply because Plaintiffs’ “requested relief far exceeds water-", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "rights administration.” See 43 U.S.C. § 666(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "It is clearly administration of a decree “to execute [that", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "decree], to enforce its provisions, to resolve conflicts as to", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "its meaning, to construe and to interpret its language.” S.", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "Delta Water Agency v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 767 F.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "531, 541 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (quoting United", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "States v. Hennen, 300 F. Supp. 256, 263 (D. Nev. 1968)).", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "Many of Plaintiffs’ requests for relief are simply requests to", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "enforce provisions of the Baker-Lehman Decree. The", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "Decree provides that “each and every water user of the Baker", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "and Lehman Creeks stream system” is enjoined “[f]rom at", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "any time diverting or using or preventing or obstructing the", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "flow, in whole or in part, in or along its natural channel, of", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "any of the water or said stream system.” Plaintiffs ask that", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "the United States “shall refrain from diverting and using", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "tributary water from Baker and Lehman Creeks at the", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "campgrounds,” and “refrain from diverting water in any", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "manner other than as allowed under the Decree.”", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs also request more extensive relief, including", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "requiring the United States “move rocks and debris to block", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "caves, sinks and seeps” and “redirect water back into the", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "channel,” and enjoining it from “planting vegetation in the", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "riparian corridors of Baker and Lehman Creeks.” According", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 25", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "to the United States, Plaintiffs seek not to administer their", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "decreed water rights, but to “enjoin federal land-", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "management practices that do not implicate the", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "administration of water rights.” But even this more", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "extensive relief is merely a means of enforcing Baker", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "Ranches’ decreed water rights, and in fact one that the", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "Decree itself contemplated. To protect decreed rights, the", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Decree required every water user to", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "“keep . . . the main stream channel through his land[ ]", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "reasonably clean of weeds, vegetation, and deposits of silt”", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "and “maintain” the channels to facilitate “minimum loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "conveyed water.” Blocking caves, sinks and seeps is a form", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "of “maintaining” channels to facilitate “minimum loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "conveyed water,” and planting vegetation in riparian", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "corridors is inconsistent with keeping the channel", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "“reasonably clean” of vegetation.", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "The Baker-Lehman Adjudication was “comprehensive,”", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "and Plaintiffs sue for the “administration” of the water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "they hold under the Baker-Lehman Decree. We therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "hold that the McCarran Amendment waives the United", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "States’ sovereign immunity from this suit.7", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "REVERSED AND REMANDED.", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "7 The dissent suggests that our interpretation of the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "Amendment’s scope serves to “sanction . . . unprecedented disruption of", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "the national park system.” We do not opine in any way on the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs’ claims, but merely hold that the suit is not barred by sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "26 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "I respectfully but emphatically dissent from the majority", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "opinion reversing the decision of the district court, which", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "faithfully applied the law governing this case in determining", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "that the sovereign immunity of the United States was not", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "waived by the McCarran Amendment. The plain language", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "of the statute, Ninth Circuit precedent, and Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "precedent support the district court=s decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "This case involves competing water rights originating", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "from the Baker-Lehman Creeks in northern Nevada. As the", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "majority notes, although the water initially flowed through", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "public lands, in more recent years the streams flow through", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "Great Basin National Park, a part of the federal park system.", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "See Majority Opinion, p. 6.", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "In 1925, and in accordance with applicable Nevada", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "statutes, the Nevada State Engineer commenced a", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "proceeding to determine the respective water rights of", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "claimants to streams of water flowing through the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "Lehman Creeks. The State Engineer published notice to", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "anyone having an interest in water rights flowing through the", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Creeks that they were required to file a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "with the State Engineer. The United States did not file a", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "claim.1 Nevertheless, the Nevada proceedings continued,", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "1 The majority opinion repeatedly references the absence of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "States from the Nevada proceedings. See e.g., Majority Opinion, p. 11", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "(AThe United States did not participate or assert any claims@); id. (AAgain,", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "the United States did not participate@); id. p. 12 (A[T]he United States", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "now claims reserved water rights, which . . . were not adjudicated or", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "recognized in the Baker-Lehman Decree.@); id. pp. 16-17 (noting that in", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "the ABaker-Lehman Adjudication@ in the Nevada administrative system", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "and Nevada courts, A[t]he United States chose not to assert any claims,", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "raise any exceptions or apply for any modifications to the . . . Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 27", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "culminating in the Baker-Lehman Decree issued on October", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "16, 1934.2 It is this Decree that forms the basis for the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "of Baker Ranches in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "Under the auspices of the Baker-Lehman Decree, Baker", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "Ranches has trespassed onto United States park land and", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "engaged in extensive construction activities, including", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "moving rocks and debris, and cleaning and straightening the", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "creek channel. These activities are sometimes conducted", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "with heavy equipment such as bulldozers.3", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "Prior to removal of these proceedings to federal court,", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "Baker Ranches sought an order in Nevada state court to", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "prohibit the Park Service=s fire suppression activities and", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "other authorized Park Service activities that, according to", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "Baker Ranches, obstruct waterflow. Baker Ranches also", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "sought permission to trespass onto federal park lands and", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "Lehman Decree@). However, because these proceedings occurred prior", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "to the express waiver of the United States= sovereign immunity in the", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment, the Nevada courts had no jurisdiction to", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "adjudicate water rights belonging to the United States. See Orff v. United", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (AAny claim for which", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity has not been waived must be dismissed for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "jurisdiction.@) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Because any action", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "involving the United States would have been dismissed for lack of", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "jurisdiction, these references to the United States= lack of participation in", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "the Nevada proceedings are red herrings. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "2 It is undisputed that the Baker-Lehman Decree did not adjudicate the", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "water rights of the United States. See Majority Opinion, p. 12", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "(commenting that the reserved water rights of the United States Awere", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "not adjudicated or recognized in the Baker-Lehman Decree@).", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "3 The United States makes a plausible argument that the trespass onto", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "federal land and engagement in extensive construction activities go far", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "beyond the administration of water rights. Because I conclude that the", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "United States did not waive its sovereign immunity, I do not address this", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "argument.", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "28 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "manipulate waterflow within the confines of Great Basin", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "National Park, all in an effort to increase the waterflow onto", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "the Baker Ranches property. In addition, Baker Ranches", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "requested that the Federal Government be precluded from", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "pursuing trespass charges for its unauthorized entry onto", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "federal land. Finally, Baker Ranches sought to enjoin the", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "United States from planting vegetation in the riparian", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "corridors of the Baker-Lehman Creeks, otherwise", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "consuming tributary waters, or removing trees or other", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "vegetation in the Baker-Lehman Creeks channels. The", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "United States vehemently challenges these requests on the", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "basis that it did not waive its sovereign immunity and is thus", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "not bound by the Baker-Lehman Decree. Unlike the", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "majority, I agree with the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "We start from the unquestioned premise Athat the United", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "unless it has expressly waived such immunity and consented", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "to be sued.@ Orff, 358 F.3d at 1142 (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "Importantly, A[w]e strictly construe in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "government the scope of any waiver of sovereign immunity.@", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Calif. v. United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "830 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), affirmed by", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "California v. United States, 490 U.S. 920 (1989) (per", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "curium) (AWaivers of sovereign immunity are construed", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "strictly and narrowly. . . .@) (citation omitted).4 As stated", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "above, A[a]ny claim for which sovereign immunity has not", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "been waived must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "(citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "4 The majority does not mention, much less apply, this stringent standard.", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 29", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "Because the majority and Bakers Ranches are of the view", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "that passage of the McCarran Amendment expressly waived", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "the United States= sovereign immunity for the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "culminating in the Baker-Lehman Decree, the provisions of", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "that statute are pivotal.", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "The McCarran Amendment provides in pertinent part:", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "Suits for adjudication of water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "(a) Joinder of United States as defendant.", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "Consent is given to join the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "as a defendant in any suit (1) for the", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "adjudication of rights to the use of water of a", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "river system or other source, or (2) for the", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "administration of such rights, where it", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "appears that the United States is the owner of", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "or is in the process of acquiring water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "by appropriation under State law, by", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "United States is a necessary party to such suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "The United States, when a party to any such", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "right to plead that the State laws are", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "inapplicable or that the United States is not", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "amenable thereto by reason of its", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "judgments, orders, and decrees of the court", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "having jurisdiction, and may obtain review", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "thereof, in the same manner and to the same", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "extent as a private individual under like", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "circumstances. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "30 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "It is crucial to acknowledge that the provisions of the", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment apply only when the United States is", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "Aa party@ to the proceeding adjudicating or administering", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "water rights. Id.5 The proceeding in this case is the Baker-", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "Lehman Decree. And as the majority pointed out repeatedly,", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "the United States decidedly was not a party to the", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "proceedings resulting in the Baker-Lehman Decree. Thus,", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "under the plain language of the statute, the United States did", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "not waive its sovereign immunity. See id. A[S]trictly", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "construe[d] in favor of the government,@ as our precedent", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "requires, the plain language of the statute supports the", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "argument of the United States that it did not waive its", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity. Orff, 358 F.3d at 1142 (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "omitted) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "Without addressing the plain language of the statute, and", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "without A[s]trictly constru[ing]@ the language of the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "Ain favor of the government;@ id., the majority nevertheless", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "concludes that the McCarran Amendment waives the United", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "States= sovereign immunity. See Majority Opinion, pp. 15-", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "23.", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment Awaives sovereign immunity only for", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "the administration of rights determined in a >comprehensive=", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "adjudication.@6 Majority Opinion, p. 15. However, I part", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "company with the majority regarding the definition of what", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "constitutes a comprehensive adjudication of water rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "5 The majority ignores this language in the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "6 Interestingly, the majority cites Orff for this proposition, but makes no", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "mention of the instruction in Orff to Astrictly construe in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "government the scope of any waiver of sovereign immunity.@ 358 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "at 1142 (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 31", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "It appears that the majority uses the term", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "Acomprehensive@ in the sense of a state regulatory scheme", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "that Areplace[s] piecemeal adjudication@ of water rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "Majority Opinion, p. 16. However, we have more precisely", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "defined the concept of Acomprehensive@ in our precedent to", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "only encompass determinations that resolve the rights of all", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "claimants to a stream of water.", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "The majority takes issue with the conclusion that a water", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "rights adjudication is not comprehensive unless it Aresolve[s]", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "the rights of all claimants to a stream of water.@ Majority", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "Opinion, p. 17. But this conclusion is embodied in our", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "precedent. See United States v. State of Oregon, 44 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "758, 768-69 (9th Cir. 1994) (A[T]he United States refers to", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "cases stating that the [McCarran] Amendment=s waiver is", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "limited to >general= or >comprehensive= adjudications. These", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "cases make clear that the [water] adjudication must include", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "the undetermined claims of all parties with an interest in the", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "relevant water source@) (emphasis added). For good", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "measure, in State of Oregon, we cited to Dugan, a case the", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "majority attempts to distinguish. See Majority Opinion, pp.", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "21-22. But see State of Oregon, 44 F.3d at 768 (citing to", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "Dugan as one of the cases making Aclear that the [water]", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "adjudication must include the undetermined claims of all", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "parties with an interest in the relevant water source@).", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "The majority also seeks to distinguish Orff. See Majority", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "Opinion, pp. 20-21. However, it is undeniable that in Orff", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "we concluded that the lawsuit was Anot the type of suit", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "contemplated by the McCarran Amendment.@ See 358 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "at 1143. Citing Metropolitan Water Dist. and Dugan, we", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "explained that the lawsuit was Anot the type of suit", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "contemplated by the McCarran Amendment@ because A[t]his", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "32 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "is not a suit to adjudicate the rights of all claimants on a", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "stream.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "In Orff, we addressed a dispute between the Westlands", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "Water District and the United States. In discussing whether", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "the action was Athe type of suit contemplated by the", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment,@ id. at 1143, we held that the", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment only authorizes actions Ato", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "adjudicate the rights of all claimants on a stream.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "(citation omitted) (emphasis added). We relied upon", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water Dist., 830 F.2d at 144, and Dugan v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 617-18 (1963).", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "In Metropolitan Water Dist., which was affirmed by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "United States Supreme Court, we addressed a challenge to", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "the resurveying of boundaries between the Fort Mojave", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "reservation and other public land in Southern California. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "830 F.2d at 140. The resurveying affected the water supply", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "of several entities with lower priorities than the Fort Mojave", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "Indian Tribe, including the Metropolitan Water District. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "id. at 141.", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "One of the jurisdictional bases asserted by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water District was the McCarran Amendment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "See id. at 142. In resolving this jurisdictional issue, we held", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "that the McCarran Amendment waives the United States=", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity Aonly [for] suits to adjudicate the rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "of all claimants to a stream.@ Id. at 144 (citing Dugan, 372", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "U.S. at 617-18) (emphasis added). Stated differently, if a", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "case does not adjudicate the water rights of all parties, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment provides no basis for jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "over the United States. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court made this point explicitly in Dugan,", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "only eleven years after passage of the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "Amendment. In that case, some water rights claimants along", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 33", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "the San Joaquin River, in the Central Valley of California,", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "sought to enjoin the United States from storing and diverting", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "water at the Friant Dam. See 372 U.S. at 610.7 After the", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "district court Aheld that the United States was a proper party", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "under the McCarran Amendment,@ the Ninth Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "reversed. Id. at 616-17. We concluded that the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "could not be joined as a party without its consent. See id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "617. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit=s ruling,", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "noting that there was no need to Aconsider the contention at", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "length.@ Id. at 617-18. In other words, the proposition was", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "so well settled that no lengthy discussion of the issue was", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "warranted. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "“We go directly to the question of joinder of", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "the United States as a party. We agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals on this", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "issue and therefore do not consider the", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "contention [that jurisdiction existed under the", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment] at length. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "sufficient to say that the provision of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "McCarran amendment relied upon by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "[water claimants] and providing that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "United States may be joined in suits for the", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "adjudication of rights to the use of water of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "river system or other source is not applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "here.", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "Id. at 617-18 (citation, footnote reference, and internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "7 Only the water claimants below the Friant Dam were parties to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "action. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "34 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court explained that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "Amendment was not applicable because the case before it", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "did not Ainvolv[e] a general adjudication of all of the rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "of various owners on a given stream.@ Id. at 618 (quoting S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Session 9 (1951)) (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "added).8 The Supreme Court explicitly relied on Athe fact", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "that all of the claimants to water rights along the river [were]", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "not made parties.@ Id. The same is true in this case Cthe", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "United States was not made a party to the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "culminating in the Baker-Lehman Decree. Therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "construing the McCarran Amendment waiver of sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "immunity strictly, narrowly, and in favor of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "States, as we must, see Orff, 358 F.3d at 1142, see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water Dist., 830 F.2d at 143, the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "Court=s decision in Dugan compels the conclusion that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment did not waive the United States=", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity for a proceeding to which it was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "party. See Dugan, 372 U.S. at 617-18 (affirming the Ninth", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "Circuit=s decision so holding). Accordingly, the majority=s", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "reliance on Dugan to support a determination that the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "States waived its sovereign immunity is simply misplaced.", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "In Orff, we relied on Dugan and Metropolitan Water", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "Dist. in concluding that the action at issue was Anot the type", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "of suit contemplated by the McCarran Amendment.@ 358", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "F.3d at 1143 & n.3. We followed our reasoning and that of", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "8 Interestingly, this is the same legislative history quoted by the majority.", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "See Majority Opinion, p. 17 (citing Eagle Cnty., 401 U.S. 525 (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Session 9)). However the majority", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "parrots the language without adhering to the Supreme Court=s", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "interpretation of that language: The McCarran Amendment does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "apply when, as in this case, the water adjudication did not determine Aall", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "of the rights of various owners on a given stream.@ Dugan, 372 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "618 (quoting S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Session 9 (1951)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 35", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "the Supreme Court in concluding that the dispute between", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "the United States and A[l]andowners and water users within", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "the Westlands district@ was Anot a suit to adjudicate or", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "administer the rights of all claimants on a stream.@ Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "1141, 1143.", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "We determined that Afinding otherwise and granting", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "waiver under [the McCarran Amendment] in this case would", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "still be counter to the holdings of Metropolitan Water Dist.", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "and Dugan, which expressly limit the government", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "=s consent", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "in waiving sovereign immunity under the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "Amendment to those cases that implicate the rights of all", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "claimants on a stream.@ Id. at 1143 n.3 (first emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "added). The majority=s reasoning is in direct conflict with", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "this binding precedent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "None of the cases cited by the majority call into question", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "this binding precedent. The majority relies heavily on State", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "Engr. v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "Indians of Nev. (Te-Moak), 339 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2003),", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "decided one year prior to Orff. In Te-Moak, no issue was", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "raised regarding whether the adjudication addressed the", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "claims of all parties, and our decision in Te-Moak did not", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "discuss that issue in any manner. See 339 F.3d at 812", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "(holding only that the McCarran Amendment applies", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "retroactively.) Tellingly, our decision in Orff did not discuss", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "or distinguish Te-Moak in holding that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "Amendment does not apply absent adjudication of the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "of all parties. See 358 F.3d at 1143. Rather, we relied on", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water Dist. and Dugan Awhich expressly limit", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "the government=s consent in waiving sovereign immunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "under the McCarran Amendment to those cases that", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "implicate the rights of all claimants on a stream.@ Id. at 1143", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "n.3 (emphasis in the original). It is reasonable to infer from", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "36 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "this language that we did not consider the decision in Te-", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "Moak to be Acounter to the holdings of Metropolitan Water", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "Dist. and Dugan@ because there was no indication in Te-", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "Moak that less than all the claimed rights were administered", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "in the water decree. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "The other cases cited by the majority are similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "distinguishable. In State of Oregon, proceedings were", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "commenced in 1975, almost twenty-five years after", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "enactment of the McCarran Amendment. See 44 F.3d at 762.", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "Therefore, no issue arose of retroactive application of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "amendment or of less than all claims being administered.", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "See id. at 765-66 (analyzing whether AOregon=s adjudication", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "of water rights . . . constitute[s] a >suit= . . . rather [than] an", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": ">administrative proceeding= outside the plain language of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment@).", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "The majority reasons that the McCarran Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "applies retroactively and thus “waives the United States=", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "immunity from suit for the administration of water", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "rights . . . acquired before the law came into effect.@", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "Majority Opinion, pp. 19-20. This reasoning relies on Te-", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "Moak, the First Circuit=s decision in United States v. Puerto", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "Rico, 287 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2002), and the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "decision in United States v. Dist. Ct. in & for Eagle Cnty.", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "(Eagle Cnty. II), 401 U.S. 520 (1971). See id. at 20.", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "However, these cases do not support a conclusion that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "United States waived its sovereign immunity under the facts", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "of this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "As previously discussed, in Te-Moak, decided one year", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "prior to Orff, no issue was raised or addressed regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "whether the adjudication of water rights included the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "of all parties. See Te-Moak, 393 F.3d at 812-13. In addition,", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "in Te-Moak the claims of the United States arose after the", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 37", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "water rights adjudication, unlike in this case where the water", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "rights claimed by the United States existed prior to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "challenged water rights adjudication. See id. at 807 (noting", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "that the decree Aencompassed five ranches that were later", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "purchased by the federal government@) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "One year later in Orff, we expressly and explicitly held", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "that the McCarran Amendment only waives the sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "immunity of the United States when the water rights of Aall", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "claimants on a stream@ are adjudicated. 358 F.3d at 1143 n.3", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "(emphasis in the original). See also Metropolitan Water", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "Dist., 830 F.2d at 144 (concluding that the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "Amendment Aauthorize[s] . . . only suits to adjudicate the", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "rights of all claimants on a stream@) (citing Dugan, 372 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "at 617-18).", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "The First Circuit=s decision actually supports the view of", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "the United States. In its decision, the First Circuit recognized", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "that any waiver under the McCarran Amendment Amust be", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "strictly construed in favor of the United States, and not", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "enlarged beyond what the language of the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "requires. . . .@ United States v. Puerto Rico, 287 F.3d at 217", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "(quoting United States v. Idaho, 508 U.S. 1, 7 (1993).9 In", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "9 United States v. Idaho involved a water rights adjudication commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "decades after enactment of the McCarran Amendment, and the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "States was joined as a party. See 508 U.S. at 4 (noting that the petition", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "commencing the water rights adjudication naming the United States as a", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "party Afollowed the enactment by the Idaho Legislature in 1985 and 1986", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "of legislation providing for the Snake River Basin Adjudication@).", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "Therefore, there was no occasion for the Supreme Court to address", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "application of the McCarran Amendment to adjudications when all", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "claimants to water rights are not made parties. cf. id. (AThe Director of", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "the Idaho Department of Water Resources filed a petition in the District", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "Court of the Fifth Judicial District naming the United States and all other", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "water users as defendants. . . .@) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "38 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "addition, the First Circuit observed that Athe McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "Amendment applies to water rights acquired prior to 1952,", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "so long as the suit against the government is commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "subsequent to that date.@ Id. (emphasis added). But the", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "Baker-Lehman Creeks suit was not Acommenced subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "to [1952].@ Id. Rather, the water rights adjudication was", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "commenced more than twenty-five years before 1952.", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "Therefore, the First Circuit decision does not support a", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "waiver of sovereign immunity in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "Finally, in Eagle County II, the United States argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "the McCarran Amendment did not waive its sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "immunity because the Amendment contemplated waiver", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "Aonly for the adjudication of water rights which the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "States acquired pursuant to state law,@ rather than Areserved", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "water rights based on withdrawals from the public domain.@", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "401 U.S. 522-23. The Supreme Court rejected this", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "argument. The Supreme Court also characterized and", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "rejected as Aextremely technical@ the argument that, in a", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "supplemental adjudication, Asince the United States cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "be barred by the previous decrees and since the owners of", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "previously decreed rights are not before the court, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "consent envisaged by [the McCarran Amendment] is not", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "present.@ Id. at 525. This ruling was made exclusively in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "context of a supplemental adjudication rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "enforcement of an initial adjudication, as is presently before", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "us. Indeed, in Eagle County II, the Supreme Court declined", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "to opine on the merits of the initial adjudication. See id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "525-26 (AThe absence of owners of previously decreed rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "may present problems going to the merits, in case there", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "develops a collision between them and any reserved rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "of the United States. All such questions, including the", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "volume and scope of particular reserved rights, are federal", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed here after", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 39", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "final judgment by the Colorado court@). The Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "referenced the observation by the Colorado state court that", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "the state court was", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "not determining whether the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "has reserved water rights . . . nor, if so,", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "whether these rights have priority over", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "previously adjudicated rights. These", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "questions properly should be decided after", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "the United States presents its specific claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "for adjudication and the issues of fact and law", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "are clearly drawn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "Id. at 526 n. 7 (quoting United States v. District Ct. in and", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "for Eagle Cnty., 458 P.2d 760, 770 (Colo. 1969) (en banc)", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "(Eagle Cnty. I) (footnote reference omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "The Colorado Supreme Court in Eagle County I", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "expressly declined to definitively resolve the United States=", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction over it in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "supplemental adjudication due to the absence of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "States from the prior water adjudications. See Eagle Cnty. I,", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "458 P.2d at 771. The Colorado Supreme Court noted that in", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "its brief the United States cited to Colorado statutes and court", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "decisions holding that water adjudication decrees could not", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "Abe attacked after four years and in a subsequent water", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "adjudication a priority cannot be given to a use of water prior", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "to the date of the last adjudicated decree.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "The Colorado Supreme Court observed that the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "States quoted from Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558, 571-", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "72 (1936), that Ano decree rendered in its absence can bind", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "or affect the United States.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "40 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "The Colorado Supreme Court further quoted the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "States= brief:", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "It is self-evident that supplemental water", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "adjudications are not actions to which the", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "United States has consented. It would be", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "absurd to hold that the United States is bound", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "by prior adjudications to which it was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "party and is thus now bound by proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "in which it cannot have its rights adjudicated.", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "Such a holding would convert [the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "Amendment] into an instrument of injustice", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "that would destroy the rights of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "States. It is for this reason that [the McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "Amendment] consents only to an", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "adjudication in which all users are before the", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "court.", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "The Colorado Supreme Court responded to the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "States= argument by stating that the language quoted from", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "Arizona v. California Awas not made in connection with an", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "adjudication of water rights by a state court10 and here again", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "we are going to wait until the matter is argued more fully and", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "specifically before making a determination as to whether", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "[the quoted language] applies to Colorado water", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "adjudications.@ Id. Nevertheless, the Colorado Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "10 Arizona v. California involved an original petition to the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "Supreme Court to fix Athe quantum of Arizona=s equitable share of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "water flowing in the Colorado river, subject to diversion and use.@ 298", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "U.S. at 559.", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "Court professed its belief: AOffhand, we are inclined to", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "believe that [the quoted language] does apply.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "The Colorado Supreme Court then referenced one of its", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "earlier cases, West End Irrigation Co. v. Garvey, 184 P.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "476 (Colo. 1947) (en banc) for the proposition that Ato the", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "extent a decree is beyond the authority of the court, it cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "be made valid by any rule of res judicata or any statutes of", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "limitation. It is no more effectual after four years than", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "before.@ Id. Based on this prior ruling, the Colorado", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "Supreme Court opined: AIt may well be that the same", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "principle should be applied to [water] appropriations made", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": "by the United States which have not been included in", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "previous adjudications to which the United States was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "party.@ Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "It was in this context that the United States Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "Court in Eagle County II characterized the government=s", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity argument as Aextremely technical.@ 401", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "U.S. at 525.", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "In sum, the context in Eagle County II involved:", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "$ A supplemental adjudication rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "an initial adjudication of water rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "$ All interested claimants joined as parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "$ The merits of the United States claims not", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "subject to adjudication. See id. at 526.", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "$ Preservation of the United States= ability", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "to assert the priority of its water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "42 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "following the supplemental adjudication.", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "See Eagle Cnty. I at 770.11", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "In contrast, Baker Ranches is seeking to enforce an initial", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "adjudication to which the United States was not a party and", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "most importantly, under the Nevada statutory scheme, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "water rights previously adjudicated cannot be reassessed in", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "a supplemental adjudication. See Majority Opinion, p.19", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "n.4. Because of this entirely different context, Eagle County", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "II is not governing precedent for this case. Rather, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "Supreme Court=s decision in Dugan, and our binding", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "precedent in Orff and Metropolitan Water Dist. compel the", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "conclusion that the United States did not waive its sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "Finally, the majority asserts that it would be Aabsurd@ to", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "permit the United States to challenge Asettled” pre-McCarran", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "Amendment decrees in Nevada. Majority Opinion, p. 18.", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "However, those pre-McCarran Amendment decrees were", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "Asettled@ at a time when the United States had not waived its", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "sovereign immunity. And under the language of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment, it does not apply when the", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "adjudication did not include the United States as a party. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "43 U.S.C. § 666 (AThe United States, when a party to any", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "such suit, shall be deemed to have waived [its sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "immunity]@) (emphasis added); see also Dugan, 372 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "617-18; Orff, 358 F.3d at 1141, 1143. This outcome is", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "especially indicated in view of our obligation to construe the", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "McCarran Amendment strictly, narrowly, and in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "11 This portion of Eagle County I refutes the majority=s assertion that Athe", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "United States was bound to respect the water rights determined in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "preceding adjudication.@ Majority Opinion, p. 19.", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM 43", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "government. See Orff, 358 F.3d at 1142; see also", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "Metropolitan Water Dist., 830 F.2d at 143.", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "In any event, it was the decided intent of Congress that", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "the McCarran Amendment apply only when all parties were", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "included in the challenged water adjudication. In Eagle", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "County II, the United States Supreme Court noted that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "Awhole community of claims is involved@ and quoted", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "Senator McCarran, Chairman of the Committee reporting on", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "the bill, on the intent of the McCarran Amendment. See 401", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "U.S. at 525. Senator McCarran=s words reflect an express", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "intent to waive sovereign immunity only when all parties are", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "permitted to present their claims. He was quoted by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "Supreme Court as stating that the McCarran Amendment:", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "is not intended to be used for any other", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "purpose than to allow the United States to be", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "joined in a suit wherein it is necessary to", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "adjudicate all of the rights of various owners", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "on a given stream. This is so because unless", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "all of the parties owning or in the process of", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "acquiring water rights on a particular stream", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "can be joined as parties defendant, any", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "subsequent decree would be of little value.", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "Id. (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court agreed with this statement in Dugan,", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "holding that the McCarran Amendment does not apply to a", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "pre-McCarran water decree that did not include the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "States as a party. See Dugan, 372 U.S. at 617-18.", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "And speaking of intent, it certainly was not the intent of", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "Congress that the McCarran Amendment be interpreted to", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "facilitate the trespass of private landowners onto public", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "44 BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "parklands and engage in diversion of water from federal", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "property, extensive excavation of federal lands, and", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "displacement of vegetation to the detriment of the park-", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "going public. The majority does not and cannot cite any", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "portion of the McCarran Amendment or any case that would", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "sanction this unprecedented disruption of the national park", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "system.12", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "In conclusion, under the language of the statute,", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "expressed legislative intent, Supreme Court authority, and", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "our precedent, the United States did not waive its sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "immunity for the Baker-Lehman Creeks adjudication. Thus,", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "the Baker-Lehman Decree does not bind the United States.", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "The district court got it right. The majority got it wrong. I", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "respectfully dissent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "12 The majority attempts to deny the disastrous effect of its decision by", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "declaring that it expresses no view on the merits of Baker Ranches", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "claims. See Majority Opinion, p.25 n.7. But by requiring the United", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "States to comply with the Baker-Lehman Creeks adjudication, the effect", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "is the same.", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" } ], "word_count": 11819, "cites": [ "241 U.S. 440", "401 U.S. 520", "508 U.S. 1", "207 U.S. 564", "426 U.S. 128", "445 U.S. 535", "372 U.S. 609", "424 U.S. 800", "401 U.S. 527", "490 U.S. 920", "401 U.S. 525", "401 U.S. 522", "298 U.S. 558", "339 F.3d 804", "44\nF.3d 758", "287 F.3d 212", "569 F.3d 898", "708 F.2d 1399", "358 F.3d 1137", "830 F.2d 139", "48 F.4th 934", "767 F.2d\n531", "44 F.3d\n758" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "6ae0d7f249507bf9a4187c6bdcc23860f529104d85bb5e2fb55366dbe5cb8db8", "source_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/30/24-5713.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T18:30:29.406+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "6ae0d7f249507bf9a4187c6bdcc23860f529104d85bb5e2fb55366dbe5cb8db8", "recomputed_sha256": "6ae0d7f249507bf9a4187c6bdcc23860f529104d85bb5e2fb55366dbe5cb8db8", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-05T17:07:50.851Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:7c12ee54709b42f47bfcb0048862e8ef6fc398bc9de710b21509596df9331edf", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "expires": "2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-05+legal-2026-10-05+2026-10-05T16:34:17", "content_hash": "sha256:7c12ee54709b42f47bfcb0048862e8ef6fc398bc9de710b21509596df9331edf", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-05T18:07:51.042Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5713-2026-09-30", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }