february fourteenth order was whether passed as participation in the a b three eighty program has been fully affected the answer to that question is clearly no bass is seeking to have his challenge and now finally determined to have been abandoned water rights matched under the eighty three eighty program to enable his proposed transfer or change of those water rights to be approved by the state engineer that has not happened pure and simple it hasn't happened the water rights have not been matched on the proposed transfer has not been approved therefore this case is not moved the courts february fourteenth order also directed the tribe to identify with particularity its claimed injury the tribes injury here takes two forms water and money as to money the tribe is entitled under the eighty three eighty program to be compensated for the vast water rights that have now been finally determined to have been abandoned the tribe has not yet been paid even though those water right to finally been determined to have been abandoned and the court the district court issued to waters which are confusing the first order of march tenth two thousand and six expression league confirmed the state engineers determination that the past water rights have been abandoned the second order of march twenty nin couple of weeks later created confusion by directing the tribe to withdraw its protest from the bass transfer applications the tribe should be and expects to be paid to be compensated by the crushing water so conservancy district the administrator of the eighty three program if the march twenty ninth the second order of the march twenty ninth two thousand and six order is reversed by this court and i would like to note in that regard that it's important for this court to act fairly quickly on that matter because the a b three d program is in the process of winding down and it will expire by june thirtieth two thousand and six and so therefore thirtieth two thousand and seven as quickly as possible as to the as to the tribes injury related to water if the march twenty ninth order is reversed the confusion created by that order would be eliminated and the bass water rights would be abandoned once and for all with no ifs ands or buts or maybe's the water rights being that are being held by the cross and water so conservancy district for matching would then be abandoned it would be abandoned by the sub conservancy district or used by the sub conservancy district to match other water rights to enable those water rights to be resolved under the program either way the tribe would benefit by reducing the total amount of water rights that are eligible to receive project water from the truckee river in two ways not one way but two ways or put another way the tribe would be is injured the tribe was injured by the march twenty ninth order because it results in more truckee river water allowed to be diverted away from pyramid lake than would be the case if that order were reversed by discord and i'd like to point out some confusion that we created in our letter and our letter brief a supplemental let every for responding to the court's order in the next to the last move this question with regard to the jurisdiction under the alpine decree are picked the tribes position is that the district court did not have jurisdiction under the alpine decree to order the tribe to withdraw applications to change or to transfer or create water rights that's not however what the district court did and it's not march twenty ninth order directing the tried to withdraw the its protest the basque motion not the state engineer to enforce bass's alleged rights under the a b three d program there was no state engineer decision on that motion to be reviewed by the district court the district court acted in the first instance decree that even arguably or remotely extends the reach of the alpine courts continuing jurisdiction to encompass the eighty three eighty program the eighty three eighty agreement or the dispute between the tribe and m bass on that point bass is only real argument is that the alpine court has jurisdiction over all matters all matters that touch or involved or affect in any way any decreed water right but that clearly is not the case if it were it would mean that the alpine court would have jurisdiction for example to adjudicate disputes arising from contracts to sell  to create water rights or disputes arising from transactions in which a decreed water right it's pledged as collateral for a loan or for a mortgage for example which happens frequently well for disputes involving decreed water right that is that issue in a contested divorce or a bankruptcy or in a probate proceedings none of that has ever happened nobody has ever argued that the federal district court sitting in the  jurisdiction over those kinds of disputes but that is a necessary conclusion of the of mr bassett argument for jurisdiction finally with regard to tribal sovereign immunity by protesting the bass transfer application the tribe waived its immunity under the holding of this court in united states against oregon with respect to the subject matter of that protest and that included of course whether the trip the bass water rights were four or four foot or four footed or abandoned but the tribe did not did not weigh the team unity with respect to all other matters an there's a continuing relationship the bath water rights is one of literally hundreds of water rights that are affected by that agreement and so the structure of the there are no provisions in the eighty three eighty agreement of any kind for dispute resolution none whatsoever there mediation and say arbitration it doesn't say any court has jurisdiction a court of competent jurisdiction there is no language like that whatsoever nor is there of course any waiver of the tribe sovereign immunity and i think what was contemplated under the agreement is that these issues would be worked out which know you mediated a lot of cases a negotiated very complicated issues and i just thank you george but it seems as if this is something that could be worked out it would seem that way i think if i were sitting in your position i would agree with that  as i've indicated trouble immunity has been repeatedly and consistently recognized and given effect by this court and by the supreme court and those decisions are cited and discussed in our brief i'd like to mention one briefly the one that i think specifically limited and clarified united states against oregon and which was the main authority on which passed revised mclendon specifically rejected and explicitly rejected the argument that the tribes initiation of a lawsuit necessarily waives its immunity with respect to issues subsequently arising from that lawsuit by bringing the action this court held the tribe had only consented to the court's adjudication of the merits of that particular controversy the controversy involved in the lawsuit not in that case it brought it but not the other disputes the followed in the wake of that initial lawsuit so auburn immunity was held to bar in fact a subsequent suit involving a related matter which happened to involve enforcement of another agreement that resulted from a settlement of the first lawsuit so mclendon we believe is dispositive here and requires reversal of the district court's march twenty ninth two thousand and six order thank you got a little over two and a half minutes for a photo if you want to use  agreed that i can use the time unless the court gets a lot of to our side unless the court has specific questions they would like to address to him in which case you're certainly invited to do that i think based on palliser said i want to address the jurisdictional issue first because i think under these cases the long history of the alpine and order decisions and by the way this falls within the alpine class if you will of decisions because we're dealing with water on the carson river as opposed to the or direction line of decisions which are related certainly so impressive as apply that that is on the truckee division mr very sustained reasons which were specifically addressed by judge jones number one this is an enrichment three reasons number one this is an enron action number two it all the water rights in stream wire rights on the carson river within the newlands project and number three the court has specifically retained jurisdiction the education i wish the tribe has been a party for twenty five years and the settlement agreement was not in entered into between but in around is over the other side of the track that's correct and not over the parties that's personal that's personal but the enron jurisdiction in the alpine cases is jurisdiction limited to determining the ownership rights title in the interest into all the water within in this litigation twenty five years ago or more well i'm so what i'm saying is that if we say in the course of making that decision that the court has just records and ram jurisdiction that has other consequences and i want to  that's my only reason for questioning what you said was interim jurisdiction applies the parties and that's that's sort of an ethical them around jurisdiction some of the rights so we say  court and that is the cry of this claiming that this court lacks jurisdiction over it and we lies on the mclendon decision for that proposition all right let's let's leave aside in around jurisdiction because the try participated in this case in the actual hearing of the bass the communication of their water rights before the nevada state engineer in fact it was the yes again and it was specifically designed as a style meant to which i suggest the tri and that unlike the cases it relies on where the court held that they could not enforce a settlement agreement that is not the case here for the very reasons that i stated earlier and that is that the tr e i probably used a goodly part of my time  jurisdiction is conferred hundred ministre to order number five and the alpine decree and as part of that the court has an educated the obligation and the authority to review sat on the studio ingenue does not have that authority state engineers it was appointed by the district cour after a final recommendation by the state engineer which the trial argues was the final decision and i suggest you under any analysis it was not it was a recommendation and the final decision came from judge mechanic or judge jones he did not address the past matter and in fact addressed it subsequently as a result of his march twenty ninth order and it was pursuant to that order that the judge determined that there had not been a final adjudication and that mr bass was entitle to participate in the three eighty program palliser's argument concerning what he's entitled to receive as a result of this i think i pointed out my letter brief first of all even if you assume that there's a final that judah cation saying that mr bacile water rights have been abandoned he is absolutely entitled to participate in the salmon program by its express terms the only difference the only difference that is also is that it's also entitled to be paid not by the mr bast but by conservancy participate in the program mr bast went out long before there was a final education but even if you say the students are news ruling was a finalist to the creation he could still go out and participate and he did and he paid out of his own pocket for the money with his money and the water has been retired the only in charge of which is operation and maintenance have been paid to teach the id the water is no longer being certification of the location of mr basons water which he was allowed to keep under the terms of the settlement agreement on his farm and that is in the process of being handled through the nevada state engineer that the result would be to the contrary is not provided for anywhere in the settlement legislation specifically and i know my times that specifically what mr palliser on behalf of his client is asking this court to do is to rewrite the settlement agreement so that mr palliser would get the max water that my client paid for for the benefit of the like would get the water that he claims because it's a final decision that my client lost on his own property and that my client then go out and purchase additional water and retire that water and then he get pay that is not second with regard to the march tenth order to which mr pridgen referred the which is reproduced in the tribes supplemental i'm sorry to the tribes excerpts of record the first page of that decision that order engineers ruling on revenge fifty force sixty four and it's up and it's some parts is affirmed so that leaves no doubt that the ruling that whatever question they may have been the doubt the state engineers decision whether was a recommendation or final or whatever by the time but by march tenth two thousand and seven that state is two thousand and six excuse me that state engine is ruling had been affirmed in the water rights were finally determined to have been to abandon nack decision on but has not been appealed by mr bass so the with the water rights having been abandoned again what mr bass is trying to do is to have his transfer of those water rights approved by the state engineer this is not a ministerial action there's no decision that the state engineer approving that transfer and the tribe has not withdrawn its protest and now that the water rights have finally been determined to have been abandoned how can water rights found to have been abandoned by a final order of the reference to the objection to the state engineers recommendations being to move and that's one of the things that's me confused because it sounds like the march ten should have disposed of the issue and here on march thirtieth got something saying that's it's moot that's exactly the point i try to make in my in the first part of my argument when i said that the issue was confused you have to you have you have contradictory orders by the district court on the one hand affirming of the excerpts where judge jones stated further the bass application has not been subjected to a final decision that would preclude him from participating in the program when the previous march tenth daughter clearly found that the water rights were abandoned water rights that are found to have been abandoned cannot be transferred that this court has said that repeatedly in the in the alpine line of cases does that answer your question directly if there is confusion or is my confusion yes your confusion i think you have reason to be confused thank you for your argument i think both sides for their argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision and the court will stand in recess for