## Facts

- A 1935 consent decree (the Globe Equity Decree) governs allocation and administration of Gila River surface water among Indian and non-Indian users, including San Carlos Project lands and the Gila Crossing District.
- The United States sued to enforce the decree for the benefit of the Gila River Indian Community and the San Carlos Apache Tribe; upstream non-Indian irrigation entities and individual users (Upper Valley Defendants) opposed several interpretations and operational restrictions.
- In Phase IV of post-decree enforcement litigation, the court conducted a bench trial addressing how the decree’s priority system, storage provisions for San Carlos Reservoir, and operational administration must function in practice.
- Disputes included whether upstream apportionments are subordinate to tribal “calls,” whether storage for irrigation of 80,000 acres of San Carlos Project lands must be protected before upstream apportionments, and whether upstream diversions require contemporaneously available reservoir storage.
- Additional disputes concerned alleged authority to divert the entire river flow at Cosper’s Crossing in the Duncan-Virden Valley, the method for accounting for transit and seepage losses, priority enforceability of Gila Crossing District lands, reporting to ensure water is used only on lands “then being irrigated,” limitations to irrigation of “crops of value,” and whether urbanized lands should be removed from irrigation entitlements.

## Issues

1. Whether the decree requires upstream apportionments and diversions to yield to prior calls by the tribes and other senior beneficiaries, including the Gila Crossing District.
2. Whether Article VIII conditions upstream apportionments on protecting reservoir storage sufficient for irrigation of 80,000 acres of San Carlos Project lands.
3. Whether upstream users may divert an apportionment when there is not water presently stored and available for release from San Carlos Reservoir.
4. Whether the decree permits diversion of the entire river flow at Cosper’s Crossing.
5. What administrative rules (call system, loss deductions, and reporting) are required to implement the decree’s limits on diversions and acreage.
6. Whether the decree limits permissible uses to irrigating “crops of value” and permits permanent removal of urbanized lands from decree benefits.

## Decision

- The court interpreted the Globe Equity Decree as a binding judgment and agreement to be enforced according to its text, context, and prior construction, rejecting attempts to dilute senior rights through subsequent practice.
- The court reaffirmed the decree’s priority structure and held that upstream apportionments are subject to prior calls by senior beneficiaries, including the tribes, and that Gila Crossing District lands possess priority rights enforceable against upstream parties.
- The court construed Article VIII(4) to require strong protection of storage for irrigation of 80,000 acres of San Carlos Project lands before upstream apportionments may proceed.
- The court construed Article VIII(5) to bar upstream diversion of an apportionment unless there is water presently stored and available for release in San Carlos Reservoir.
- The court rejected any interpretation of the Cosper’s Crossing condition that would allow diversion of the entire river flow to the detriment of decreed senior users.
- The court approved and refined administrative mechanisms, including a priority-based call system, reporting to enforce the “then being irrigated” limitation across upper and lower valleys, and an evidentiary-based method for deducting transit and seepage losses.
- The court held the decree prohibits using Gila River water for purposes other than irrigating “crops of value” and concluded it had authority to permanently remove urbanized lands from decree irrigation entitlements.

## Legal Principles

- A consent decree allocating water operates as both a judgment and an agreement; it is interpreted and enforced according to its terms and the decree’s overall structure and purpose.
- Where a decree establishes a priority system, administrative “calls” function as enforcement tools for senior rights and must not be implemented in a way that insulates junior upstream diversions.
- Decree provisions conditioning junior apportionments on reservoir storage and availability may be enforced as substantive prerequisites to diversion to prevent depletion that would defeat senior rights.
- Individual clauses regulating diversions must be read consistently with the decree’s priority framework and cannot be construed to authorize complete deprivation of senior beneficiaries.
- Courts supervising long-running water decrees may order operational rules (accounting for conveyance losses, reporting, acreage verification, and enforcement protocols) necessary to make decree limits workable.
- Where decree entitlements are tied to irrigation, the court may limit uses to agricultural irrigation as specified (including “crops of value”) and may remove lands that no longer qualify (such as urbanized lands) to prevent use inconsistent with the decree.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Globe Equity Decree’s priority-based allocation and Article VIII storage conditions, restricted upstream diversion practices that would impair senior tribal and project rights, and ordered administrative and reporting measures to ensure diversions occur only for qualifying irrigated lands and permitted agricultural uses, including removal of urbanized lands from decree benefits.


United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 920 F. Supp. 1444 (D. Ariz. 1996)