United States of America v. Orr Water Ditch Co.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
and
TAHOE RENO COMMERCIAL
CENTER, LLC,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ORR WATER DITCH CO.,
Defendant,
and
NEVADA STATE ENGINEER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-17021
D.C. No. CV-73-00018-LDG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
APR 07 2010
MO LLY C. DW YER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: HALL, W. FLETCHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Tahoe Reno Commercial Center, LLC (“TRCC”) appeals the
dismissal of its appeal of Nevada State Engineer Ruling 5747 for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In a separate disposition filed today, we reverse and remand
the district court’s decision dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an
appeal of the same ruling by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians. United
States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., No. 07-17001.
TRCC complains that the State Engineer’s ruling, inter alia, failed to grant
TRCC’s applications for water permits to which it was allegedly entitled. TRCC
represents that it has separately appealed the State Engineer’s ruling in state court,
that it does not seek to have a federal court adjudicate its appeal, and that it filed its
appeal in federal court only as a protective measure.
TRCC has not alleged that the grant or denial of water rights to it would
have an effect on any party’s rights under the Orr Ditch Decree. Thus, the district
court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the part of the State Engineer’s
ruling adjudicating TRCC’s applications. As we explain in our published opinion,
“To the extent that groundwater may be allocated consistent with protection of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Tribe’s decreed rights, the amount of the allocations and distribution among the
applicants are of no concern to the district court.” United States v. Orr Water
Ditch Co., No. 07-17001, ms 17. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal
of TRCC’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and leave TRCC to pursue
its remedies in state court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --