United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co.

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co.

400 F.3d 1117, 2005 WL 466204

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 1, 2005·No. Nos. 03-16654, 03-16941·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

This court’s opinion, filed December 14, 2004, slip op. 16855, is hereby amended as follows:

At slip. op. 16864, in the second paragraph of subsection C, change ‘We have consistently held that state law governs applications to change the use of water rights under the Orr Ditch Decree.” to “We have consistently applied state law to applications to change the use of water rights under the Orr Ditch Decree.” In the third sentence of the same paragraph, change “In reaching this conclusion, we have been guided by the policies underlying the 1902 Reclamation Act, which the Supreme Court has construed to require that ‘state water law .. •: control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water.’ ” to “In doing so, we have been guided by the policies underlying the 1902 Reclamation Act, which the Supreme Court has construed to require that ‘state water law ... control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water.’ ”

[1118]*1118With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing, filed January 28, 2005, is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This court’s opinion, filed December 14, 2004, slip op. 16855, is hereby amended as follows:

At slip. op. 16864, in the second paragraph of subsection C, change ‘We have consistently held that state law governs applications to change the use of water rights under the Orr Ditch Decree.” to “We have consistently applied state law to applications to change the use of water rights under the Orr Ditch Decree.” In the third sentence of the same paragraph, change “In reaching this conclusion, we have been guided by the policies underlying the 1902 Reclamation Act, which the Supreme Court has construed to require that ‘state water law .. •: control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water.’ ” to “In doing so, we have been guided by the policies underlying the 1902 Reclamation Act, which the Supreme Court has construed to require that ‘state water law ... control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water.’ ”

[1118]*1118With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing, filed January 28, 2005, is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 400 F.3d 1117, 2005 WL 466204 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

400 F.3d 1117 (United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States of America, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Orr Water Ditch Company, and Churchill County Truckee-Carson Irrigation District City of Fallon City of Fernley Truckee Meadows Water Authority Nevada State Engineer, United States of America, and Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Orr Water Ditch Company, and Churchill County Truckee-Carson Irrigation District City of Fallon City of Fernley Truckee Meadows Water Authority Nevada State Engineer

400 F.3d 1117 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Opinion

Related