Nevada v. United States summary

Nevada v. United States (1983)

Situation: This case stems from a suit over Truckee River water that began in 1913. In the early decades of the 20th century, Truckee River water served two main purposes besides domestic use: nourishing the legendary Lahontan cutthroat trout and other fish that lived in Pyramid Lake, and irrigating desert lands for agriculture. Pyramid Lake and its fish were central to the traditions and life of the Paiute Tribe, who had lived in the area since "time immemorial." Their reservation, which included all of the lake, was established in 1859 and confirmed by Executive Order in 1874. White settlers flooded northern Nevada after the discovery of the fabled Comstock lode in 1859. After the silver and gold ran out, some stayed on to irrigate and farm lands east of the mining towns of Virginia City and Reno. Reclamation of arid lands became a federal priority following passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902. The 200,000+ acre Newlands Project in the Fallon area was one of the first fruits of the new Act. The Project diverted Truckee River water to supplement meager amounts available from the Carson River. With Project diversions now competing with private diversions, the amount of water flowing through the lower Truckee and reaching Pyramid Lake dropped significantly, especially in drought years. In 1913, the federal government asked the District Court to settle all water claims on the river. A decision, known as the Orr Ditch decree, was finally issued 31 years later, in 1944. Significantly more water was allocated to the irrigators than to the tribe.

In 1973 the US and the Pyramid Lake Paiute tribe went back to court to claim additional water rights. They argued that the 1944 agreement only determined the tribe’s right to irrigation water, not to the water necessary to maintain the river and lake’s fisheries. By this time the Lahontan cutthroat trout was extinct, and another species, the cui-ui, was near extinction.

Decision: The US Supreme Court decided that the original 1944 settlement should remain in force. It argued that the government had gone to court in 1913 to settle water claims on the Truckee once and for all, and with the 1944 decree, got what it asked for. Therefore under the doctrine of res judicata it had no right to come back and reopen the case.

Implications: The significance of this case comes from the value the Court places on closure and certainty in water rights conflicts. In effect it said western water is so scarce and claims for it are so overwhelming that there’s a constant danger that conflict and litigation will go on forever unless a legal settlement actually settles any future claims. Continual uncertainty over who owns the rights to how much water caused by "courts [which] vacillate and overrule their own decisions" would harm "the peace and repose of society" if not the "social order" itself. The Supreme Court implicitly acknowledges that the tribe may have gotten a raw deal in 1944, but when it comes to water and property rights, keeping the boundaries of those rights fixed and certain for all parties is more beneficial to society than righting a past wrong suffered by one party.