Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 1 Nos. 18-2164 & 18-2167 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Pueblos of Jemez, Santa Ana and Zia, Plaintiff/Appellant, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. STATE ENGINEER, Plaintiff/Appellee, PUEBLOS OF SANTA ANA, JEMEZ and ZIA, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention/Appellants, v. TOM ABOUSLEMAN, et al., Defendants/Appellees. __________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico No. 6:83-cv-01041 (Hon. Martha Vazquez) __________________________________ RESPONSE BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JEMEZ RIVER BASIN WATER USERS’ COALITION __________________________________ ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED __________________________________ Larry C. White John W. Utton Post Office Box 2248 Utton & Kery, PA Santa Fe, NM 87504 Post Office Box 2683 (505) 982-2863 Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) 699-1445 Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..............................................1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .......................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................3 III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE .........................................................3 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..........................................................4 A. The US’ Complaint and Pueblos’ Complaints in Intervention ............................................................................6 B. The US/Pueblos’ Statements of Claims and Efforts to “Pin Down” the Legal and Factual Basis Thereof ..................8 C. Quantification Claimed by the US/Pueblos ..............................10 D. Motions for Summary Judgment and Judge Zinn’s September 14, 1988 Report .....................................................11 E. Judge Zinn’s October 1, 1991 Report on the Pueblos Historic and Existing Uses .......................................................13 F. Judge Vazquez’s 2004 Opinion ................................................14 G. Judge Vazquez’s 2017 Opinion ................................................16 V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................17 VI. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................18 A. Standard of Review ..................................................................18 B. The US/Pueblos’ “Aboriginal Water Right” Claim and the Applicability of Winters and Winans ..................................19 i Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 3 C. Substantial, Uncontroverted Evidence Supports the 2017 Opinion’s Adoption of Judge Lynch’s PFRD .................26 D. The US/Pueblos Mischaracterize the 2017 Opinion which Correctly Applied Santa Fe Pacific and Should Be Affirmed ..................................................................36 E. Congressional Acts Pertaining to Water Rights Bar the US/Pueblos’ Claims to Expanding Water Rights ...............40 F. “Aboriginal Title” Cases Do Not Apply to the Pueblos’ Grant Lands...............................................................................45 G. Even if the Aboriginal Title Cases Applied, They Limit the US/Pueblos’ Claims to Actual Uses as of the Treaty .........46 H. The Pueblos Concede that a Grant by Spain to a Third Party Extinguished the Pueblo Aboriginal Claim to What was Granted .....................................................................51 I. Neither Adair, Greely nor Joint Board Support the US/Pueblos’ Claims ..................................................................55 J. Neither Aamodt I nor Aamodt II Support the US/Pueblos’ or Amici’s Claims .....................................................................59 K. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Bars the US/Pueblos’ Claims .......................................................................................65 L. Inchoate Rights, as those Claimed Here, Were Not Recognized by the Treaty .........................................................67 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................69 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................70 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................70 ii Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 4 CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION AND PRIVACY REDACTIONS ................................................................71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................71 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 10, 1983 (unpublished). Attachment B New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, December 29, 1993 (unpublished). Attachment C New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, January 17, 1997 (unpublished). iii Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Intern. Union v. Continental Carbon Co., 428 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2005) ....................................... 4 Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Company, 436 U.S. 604 (1978) ................. 42 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) .......................................... 7, 8, 9, 21, 60 Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall 507 (1874)......................................................... 41, 42 Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall 670 (1874) ........................................................... 41, 42 Broder v. Water Company, 101 U.S. 274 (1879) .................................................... 41 Burgess v. Gray, 16 How. 48, 21 Curtis 25 (1853) ................................................. 68 Board of Flathead, et. al., Irr. Dist. v. U.S., 832 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1007 (1988) .............................................................................. 57 California Oregon Power Company v. Beaver Portland Cement Company, 295 U.S. 142 (1935) .............................................................................. 42 California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978) ............................................. 42, 43 Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) .............................................. 12, 60 Cartwright v. Public Service Company, 343 P.2d 654 (1958) .......................... 67, 68 Dalzell v. RP Steamboat Springs, LLC, 781 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2015 ................. 19 Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall 308 (1871) .................................................................... 68 Forbes v. Gracie, 94 U.S. 762 ................................................................................. 41 Grant v. Jaramillo, 6 N.M. 313 (1892) ................................................................... 68 iv Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 6 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 338 (1966) .................. 52 Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) ........................................................... 9, 48 Joint Board of Control v. United States, 832 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 100 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1988)........................................................... 54, 57 Montana ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1985) .......................... 54, 56, 57 New Mexico ex. rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 89 P.3d 47 (2004) ...... 67, 68, 69 New Mexico v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1976) ............. 8, 9, 24, 38, 42, 43, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65 New Mexico v. Aamodt, 618 F. Supp. 993 (D.N.M. 1985) .............................................................. 32, 34, 38, 40, 54, 58, 62, 65 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 10, 1983 (unpublished) ............................................................ 60 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, December 29, 1993 (unpublished) ................................. 57, 58, 61, 64 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, January 17, 1997 (unpublished) ................................................. 61, 62 Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) ............................................................................................... 48 Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ............................................................................................... 45 Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Intern. Union v. Continental Carbon Co., 428 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2005) ..................................... 4 Pueblo de Cochiti v. United States, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422 (1959) ........................... 52 Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 18, 46, 48, 49, 53 65 v Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 7 Pueblo of Taos v. United States, 15 Ind.Cl.Comm. 666 (1965) .............................