Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District of Arizona’s summary judgment in favor of the Gila River Indian Community in a dispute concerning alleged pumping of Gila River subflow by landowners. The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, but that neither the Globe Equity Decree nor the Gila River Adjudication gave another court prior exclusive jurisdiction over the claims. The court also rejected claim preclusion on the record presented, held that summary judgment on whether the wells were pumping legally defined subflow was improper, vacated the well-shutdown remedy, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District of Arizona or the Arizona Gila River Adjudication court had prior exclusive jurisdiction over GRIC's claims.
- Whether GRIC's claims were barred by claim preclusion because an identical 2007 complaint had been dismissed with prejudice.
- Whether GRIC proved by clear and convincing evidence on summary judgment that the defendants' wells pumped subflow or were located within the subflow zone.
- Whether the district court's order shutting down all four wells was an overbroad remedy.
Holdings
- The Globe Equity Decree did not give the District of Arizona prior exclusive jurisdiction over GRIC's claims against nonparties to the Decree. The Decree was a quasi in rem proceeding concerning the water rights of its parties, not an in rem proceeding concerning the entire Gila River mainstem.
- The Arizona Gila River Adjudication court did not have prior exclusive jurisdiction over GRIC's claims.
- The federal district court had non-exclusive original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
- The 2007 dismissal with prejudice did not bar GRIC's present claims.
- GRIC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that any well pumped legally defined subflow.
- GRIC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the wells were located in a saturated floodplain Holocene alluvium subflow zone.
- The district court's order shutting down all four wells could not stand because the merits summary judgment was reversed, and the remedy was vacated for reconsideration on remand.
Key quotations
“The res here is not the entire mainstem; it is the water rights of the parties to the Decree.” (18)
“The statutory grounds for jurisdiction merit further discussion, much of which was covered by the district court’s 2020 jurisdictional order.” (24-25)
““[A] well pumping underground water is presumed initially to be pumping percolating groundwater, not appropriable subflow.”” (35)
“Nothing in Gila IV tells us that water that at some point came from Gila River is automatically subflow.” (39-40)
“GRIC does not get to cut corners by relying on a jurisdictional assumption when doing so impacts Defendants’ substantive water rights.” (48)
Factual background
GRIC alleged that the Schoubroek and Sexton families were pumping groundwater that originated in the Gila River and thereby impairing GRIC's reserved and Globe Equity Decree water rights. Four wells were at issue. Defendants' expert modeled the wells and estimated that three wells pumped small percentages of Gila River-derived water, but the model did not determine whether the wells pumped legally defined subflow or appreciably and directly diminished the river. The parties also disputed whether the wells were located in a saturated floodplain Holocene alluvium subflow zone.
Procedural history
The Gila River Indian Community filed suit in the District of Arizona in 2019 alleging that four wells operated by the defendants pumped Gila River subflow without a Globe Equity Decree right. The district court denied motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions based on exclusive jurisdiction, forum selection, and claim preclusion; granted summary judgment to GRIC on the merits; ordered the wells shut down; and entered final judgment in September 2023. The Ninth Circuit affirmed federal jurisdiction and the denial of claim-preclusion relief, reversed the finding of prior exclusive federal jurisdiction and the merits summary judgment, vacated the remedy, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The district court must reconsider the merits of GRIC's claims under the applicable clear-and-convincing-evidence standards and reconsider any remedy, including whether mitigation or a rational de minimis exclusion is appropriate rather than shutting down the wells entirely. The prior remedy was vacated.