Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mohave Valley Irrigation & Drainage District v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of Interior
Citations: 244 F.3d 1164; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2902; 44 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 40; 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20578; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 3578; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6105; 2001 WL 357121Docket: 99-16927
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 11, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District appeals the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, regarding a 1968 contract that entitles the District to 41,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River system. The dispute centers on whether this entitlement includes water delivered to landowners within the District who possess present perfected rights (PPRs), defined by the Supreme Court as rights existing as of June 25, 1929, that have been used beneficially under state or federal law. The Department of the Interior is required by 43 U.S.C. § 617e to supply water to PPR holders, which the District argues limits its own water allotment. The 1968 contract outlines the District's water allotment and procedures for adjustments every ten years but does not clarify how PPR deliveries affect this allotment. The Interior Department contends that it satisfies its obligations by deducting the water delivered to PPR holders from the District's total allotment. The district court supported this view, concluding that the contract's terms include all water deliveries, even to PPR holders. The District claims the contract is ambiguous and seeks a trial to clarify its entitlement to the full allotment independent of PPR deliveries. Federal law governs the interpretation of contracts involving the U.S., and the court assesses ambiguity based on whether a reasonable person would find the terms unclear. The contract’s language appears to align with the Interior's interpretation. The contract defines the District as the land in Mohave County within the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, excluding areas removed by resolution or court order. There is no judicial ruling exempting holders of Permanent Pumping Rights (PPRs) from the definition of water delivered to the District, nor does the contract itself make such exceptions. The term 'water delivered' encompasses all water pumped for use within or outside the District, indicating no exclusion for PPR holders. The District argues that the lack of mention of PPRs in the contract supports its position, but prior Supreme Court recognition of PPRs suggests otherwise. The contract's broad definitions imply that if exclusion were intended, the language would reflect that. The District seeks to introduce extrinsic evidence to support its claim of ambiguity in the contract, referencing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which permits consideration of evidence regarding course of dealing, trade usage, or course of performance. The District cites its initial contract with the Hurschler family, a PPR holder, asserting that it did not alter the District's water allotment until nine years later. However, the Hurschler contract explicitly states that it does not increase the District's water entitlement. This undermines the argument for ambiguity, as it suggests that the District could not have reasonably believed its entitlement was increased. Additionally, minutes from a 1969 Board meeting indicating the Chairman’s belief that water to PPR holders would be added to the allotment do not constitute admissible evidence under the UCC, as they do not reflect mutual conduct or performance. Consequently, without supporting evidence of ambiguity, the contract remains clear and is affirmed.