F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellant , and

P YR AMI D L AKE P AI UT E T R I B E OF I NDI ANS , In te rv e no r-Plain tif f ,

v.

B O A RD O F D I R EC TOR S OF THE T RUCK EE -C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , individually , and as Re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he Cla ss o f a ll Water User s in the Newla nds Re c lamatio n Pr oje c t; T RUCK EE

C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT ,

Defendants-A

ppellees , and

S T A T E O F N EV ADA , Depa rtment of Con se rv a tio n a

nd Natur a l Re so ur c e s, Division of Wi ldlife and Division of State L and s; C H U RC H I LL C OU NT Y ; D ODG E B R OTHE R S AND D ODG E J R

. F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D P. H AR R I GAN ; G EO R GE AND S H ELLY No. 12-15474

D.C. No. 3:95-cv-00757- HDMU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 2

RAE RA K U SH IN ; W I L L I AM D. AND G WE NDOL YN W A SHBU RN ; M A R V IN W EI S HAU PT ; H OW AR D D. W O LF F AMI L Y T RU ST ; RAY C ONL AN ; C O RKIL L B R OS ., I

NC .; C AL VI N R. M OF F I TT AND C AND ACE J. M OF F I TT ; B ELL F AMI L Y T RU ST ; L AR R Y L. F RI T Z F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D L. M ATL EY AND C HRI S TI NE L. M AT L EY F AMI L Y T R US T AND D AVI D M AT L EY ; H AR OL D G. AND R HONDA J OHNS ON AND J OHNS ON F AMI L Y T RU ST ; A&A D A I RY ; J OYCE L OHR ; P ER AL DO B ROT H ERS ; S T I LL WA T ER F AR MS , I NC .; C H A RLES P. F RE Y , J R

. AND D EB R A S. F RE Y ; N OR MAN W. F RE Y ; F AL L ON -P AI UT E S HOSHONE T RI BE ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts

.

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA , Plain tif f , and

P YR AMI D L AKE P AI UT E T R I B E OF I NDI ANS , Interve nor-Plaintiff

–Appellant ,

v.

B O A RD O F D I R EC TOR S OF THE T RUCK EE -C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON No. 12-15476

D.C. No. 3:95-cv-00757- HDMU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 3

D I STRI CT , individually , and as Re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he Cla ss o f a ll Water User s in the Newla nds Re c lamatio n Pr oje c t; T RUCK EE

C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT ,

Defendants-A

ppellees , and

S T A T E O F N EV ADA , Depa rtment of Con se rv a tio n a

nd Natur a l Re so ur c e s, Division of Wi ldlife and Division of State L and s; C H U RC H I LL C OU NT Y ; D ODG E B R OTHE R S AND D ODG E J R

. F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D P. H AR R I GAN ; G EO R GE AND S H ELLY RAE RA K U SH IN ; W I L L I AM D. AND G WE NDOL YN W A SHBU RN ; M A R V IN W EI S HAU PT ; H OW AR D D. W O LF F AMI L Y T RU ST ; RAY C ONL AN ; C O RKIL L B R OS ., I

NC .; C AL VI N R. M OF F I TT AND C AND ACE J. M OF F I TT ; B ELL F AMI L Y T RU ST ; L AR R Y L. F RI T Z F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D L. M ATL EY AND C HRI S TI NE L. M AT L EY F AMI L Y T R US T AND D AVI D M AT L EY ; H AR OL D G. AND R HONDA J OHNS ON AND J OHNS ON F AMI L Y T RU ST ; A&A D A I RY ; J OYCE L OHR ; P ER AL DO B ROT H ERS ; S T I LL WA T ER F AR MS , I NC .; C H A RLES P. F RE Y , J R

. ANDU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 4

D EB R A S. F RE Y ; N OR MAN W. F RE Y ; F AL L ON -P AI UT E S HOSHONE T RI BE ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts

.

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,
P YR AMI D L AKE P AI UT E T R I B E OF I NDI ANS , Interve nor-Plaintiff

–Appellee ,

v.

B O A RD O F D I R EC TOR S OF THE T RUCK EE -C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , individually , and as Re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he Cla ss o f a ll Water User s in the Newla nds Re c lamatio n Pr oje c t; T RUCK EE

C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , De fe nd an ts , S T A T E O F N EV ADA , Depa rtment of Con se rv a tio n a

nd Natur a l Re so ur c e s, Division of Wi ldlife and Division of State L and s; C H U RC H I LL C OU NT Y ; D ODG E B R OTHE R S AND D ODG E J R

. F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D P. H AR R I GAN ; G EO R GE AND S H ELLY RAE RA K U SH IN ; W I L L I AM D. AND No. 12-15594

D.C. No. 3:95-cv-00757- HDMU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 5

G WE NDOL YN W A SHBU RN ; M A R V IN W EI S HAU PT ; H OW AR D D. W O LF F AMI L Y T RU ST ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts , S T I LL WA T ER F AR MS , I NC .; C HARL ES P. F RE Y , J R

. AND D EB R A S. F RE Y ; N OR MAN W. F RE Y ; F AL L ON -P AI UT E S HOSHONE T RI BE ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts , and

RAY C ONL AN ; C O RKIL L B R OS ., I NC .; C AL VI N R. M OF F I TT AND C A N D A CE J. M OF F I TT ; B ELL F AMI L Y T RU ST ; L AR R Y L. F RI T Z F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D L. M ATL EY AND C HR I S TI NE L. M ATL EY F AMI L Y T R US T AND D AVI D M AT L EY ; H AR OL D G. AND R HONDA J OHNS ON AN D J OHNS ON F AMI L Y T RU ST ; A&A D A I RY ; J O Y CE L OHR ; P ER AL DO B ROT H ERS , In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts– Ap pe lla nts

.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 6

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,
P YR AMI D L AKE P AI UT E T R I B E OF I NDI ANS , Interve nor-Plaintiff

–Appellee ,

v.

B O A RD O F D I R EC TOR S OF THE T RUCK EE -C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , individually , and as Re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he Cla ss o f a ll Water User s in the Newla nds Re c lamatio n Pr oje c t; T RUCK EE

C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , De fe nd an ts , S T A T E O F N EV ADA , Depa rtment of Con se rv a tio n a

nd Natur a l Re so ur c e s, Division of Wi ldlife and Division of State L and s; D ODG E B R OTHE R S AND D ODG E J R

. F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D P. H AR R I GAN ; G EO R GE AND S H ELLY RAE RA K U SH IN ; W I L L I AM D. AND G WE NDOL YN W A SHBU RN ; M A R V IN W EI S HAU PT ; H OW AR D D. W O LF F AMI L Y T RU ST ; C I T Y O F F AL L ON ; RAY C ONL AN ; C O RKIL L B R OS ., I NC .; C AL VI N R. M OF F I TT AND C A N D A CE J. M OF F I TT ; B ELL F AMI L Y T RU ST ; L AR R Y L. F RI T Z F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D L. M ATL EY AND C HR I S TI NE No. 12-15595

D.C. No. 3:95-cv-00757- HDMU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 7

L. M ATL EY F AMI L Y T R US T AND D AVI D M AT L EY ; H AR OL D G. AND R HONDA J OHNS ON AN D J OHNS ON F AMI L Y T RU ST ; A&A D A I RY ; J O Y CE L OHR ; P ER AL DO B ROT H ERS ; S T I LL WA T ER F AR MS , I NC .; C HARL ES P. F RE Y , J R

. AND D EB R A S. F RE Y ; N OR MAN W. F RE Y ; F AL L ON -P AI UT E S HOSHONE T RI BE ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts , and

C H U RC H I LL C OU NT Y , Interve nor-Defe ndant–Appellant

.

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,
P YR AMI D L AKE P AI UT E T R I B E OF I NDI ANS , Interve nor-Plaintiff

–Appellee ,

v.

B O A RD O F D I R EC TOR S OF THE T RUCK EE -C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , individually , and as Re pr e se ntativ e s o f t

he Cla ss o f a ll Water User s in the Newla nds No. 12-15599

D.C. No. 3:95-cv-00757- HDM

OPI NI ONU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 8

Re c lamatio n Pr oje c t; T RUCK EE

C AR S ON I R R I GATI ON D I STRI CT , De fe nd an ts , C H U RC H I LL C OU NT Y ; D ODGE B R OTHE R S AND D ODG E J R

. F A M I LY T RU ST ; D AVI D P. H AR R I GAN ; G EO R GE AND S HE L L Y RAE RA K U SH IN ; W I L L I AM D. AND G WE NDOL YN W A SHBU RN ; M A R V IN W EI S HAU PT ; H OW AR D D. W O LF F AMI L Y T RU ST ; RAY C ONL AN ; C O RKIL L B R OS ., I

NC .; C AL VI N R. M OF F I TT AND C AND ACE J. M OF F I TT ; B ELL F AMI L Y T RU ST ; L AR R Y L. F RI T Z F AMI L Y T RU ST ; D AVI D L. M ATL EY AND C HRI S TI NE L. M AT L EY F AMI L Y T R US T AND D AVI D M AT L EY ; H AR OL D G. AND R HONDA J OHNS ON AND J OHNS ON F AMI L Y T RU ST ; A&A D A I RY ; J OYCE L OHR ; P ER AL DO B ROT H ERS ; S T I LL WA T ER F AR MS , I NC .; C H A RLES P. F RE Y , J R

. AND D EB R A S. F RE Y ; N OR MAN W. F RE Y ; F AL L ON -P AI UT E S HOSHONE T RI BE ,

In te rv e no r-

De fe nd an ts , andU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 9

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. S T A T E O F N EV ADA , Depa rtment of Con se rv a tio n a

nd Natur a l Re so ur c e s, Division of Wi ldlife and Division of State L and s, Interve nor-Defe ndant–Appellant

.

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Neva da Howar d D. McKibbe n, Senior District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 12 , 2 01 3— San F ra

nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia Filed July 22, 2013

Be fore : Mary

M. Schroede r, Mar sha S. Be rzon, and Jay S. B y be e , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e Schroe der

SUMMAR

Y *

WaterRights The panel dismiss ed appe als from Churc hill C ounty and th e S t ate of Neva da, withdre w the mandate in United States

v . B e ll , No. 05-16154+ , 602 F.3d 1074 ( 9th Cir. 2010), andU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 10

amende d the opinion, a

nd vaca ted the judgme nt of the district court on re mand in an ac tion concer ning dive rsion of wat er from the Tr

uckee and Carson River s to e ither irrig ation use or for the be nefit of the Py

ramid L ake Paiute I

ndian Tribe.

I n the Be ll case , the pane l held that in calculating the amount of excess water dive rs i o ns, the district court had fa ile d a pp ro pr iate ly

to a c c ount f

or the margin

of e rr or wi th
res p e c t to th e g a

u g e s th a t me a s ur e d th e f lo w of the div e r s i o n s

. T h e p an e l h e l d th a t i t w a s m i s t ak e n i nits
un de rs tand ingof

the sc op e of

the g a ug e e rr or , an d that it sh ou ld n ot h ave lim ite d r e c a lc ulatio n to the fou r y ear s in which the district court ini tially found excess diversions. The pan e l h e ld

th a t i t s h o u ld

h av e o r d e r e d

r e c a lc u lati o no f

the g aug e er ror’ s impact i n all the y ear s potentially aff ecte d. The pa ne l w ith dr e w the mand a te , a nd or de re d the dis tr ic t c ourt

to
rec alculate the ef

fec t of g aug e er

ror not only

for the years 1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979, but for th e y ear s 1973, 1976, 19 8 5 , an d 1 9 8 6 a s w e ll , to d e te r mi n e th e amo un t of any
e xce ss d ive rs ion s.

CO UN SEL

I g nacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, F red Disheroon, Da

vid C. S hilton, S t ephen M. MacF arla ne, and Kather ine J . Ba

rton (ar g ued), U nited States Depa rtment of J ustice, Envir onmental & Natura l Resource s Division, Was h in g to n , D

. C. , f

o r Pl a inti f f

- Ap p e ll an t/Ap p e ll e e U n ite d States of Amer ica.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 11 Don Spring mey er ( argued) a nd Christopher W. Mix son, Wolf , Rifk in, Sha

pir o, Sc hu lma

n & Ra bk in, L L P, L a s V e g a s, Ne va da, for

Int erve no r-P lai nt iff

–A pp e lla nt/ Ap pe lle e Py

ra mid L ake Pa iut e Tr ibe of

I nd ians

. Michae l J. V an Z andt and Ne il R. Barda ck (a rgued), H anson Br idge tt L L P, S an Fr an cis co, California , for Def endants–Appe llees/Appella n t s Boa rd of Dir ector s of the Trucke e-Car son I rr igation District and Trucke e-Car son Irr ig a tio n D istri c t.

L aura A. Schroede r and The rese A. Ure (ar g ued), Schr oeder L aw O ff ic e s, P.C. , Ren o, Ne va da , for I nte rv e no r D e fe nd ant: Cross-Appellant/Appe llee Churchill County , Neva da. Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney Gene ral; Nhu Q. N g uy en, Senior Deputy

Attorney Gene ral, Ca rson City , Neva da, for I nterve nor-De fenda nt–A ppellant State of Ne vada, Depa rtment of Conservation and Natura l Resource s, Division of Wildl ife a

nd Division of State L and.

M i ch ae l F. M ac k ed o n , M ac k ed o n , M c C o r m i ck& K i n g, Fa llon, Nevada , for Interve nor
- Def endants–Appe llees City

of F a llo n, e t a l.

OP IN ION
SCHROEDER, Ci rcuit Judge:

We d e a l i nt h i s a

p p e a l w i thw h a te s s e n t i a l l y am o un t s to
a footnote to the long- runninglitigation over how much water fr om t he Tr uc ke e and

Cars on Riv ers sh ould b e div e rt e d to irri g ation and how much should flow into Py ramid L ake f

orU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 12

the bene fit of the P y

ramid L ake Paiute I

ndian Tribe ( “the Tribe” ). See Nevada v . United Sta t es , 463 U.S. 110 (1983); Un ite d Sta te

s v . B e ll , 60 2 F. 3d 10 74 (9 th C ir . 2 01 0) ; Py ra mi d Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel , 882 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 19 89 ); Truckee -Carson Irr i g a tion Dist. v. Sec’y

of Dep’t of Interior , 742 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1984) (“ TCI D v . S e c re tar y ”); United States v. Alpine Land & Reserv oir Co. , 697 F.2d 851 (9 th Cir. 1 98 3) ; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton , 354 F. Supp. 252 (D.D.C. 1973) (“ Tribe v. Morton ”). The fede ral g ov e rnme nt a nd the Tr ibe no w a sk

us to
rec onsider one a spect of our most rece nt opinion. Se e Be ll , 602 F.3d at 1085, 1087.

Be ll conce rned w at er that the Trucke e-Car son I rrig ation District (“TCI D”) diverted f or irrig ation b etwee n 1973 and 1988 and that the g overnme nt claimed was in excess of the amount allowed by

applicable regu lation. We held, among oth e r t hin g s, that in

c a lc ulatin g the amo un t of e xce ss div e rs ion s, the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d f a iled a pp ro pr iate ly

to
acc ount for the mar g in of err or with respe ct to the g aug es that
measure d the flow of the diversions. Id. at 1085. The district court c alculate d the amount of water diverted by choosingthe low e nd of thi s ma rg in o f e rr or

and th us assi g ne d a ll
uncer tainty in the g aug e flow c alcu l at ions in favor of the T C I D and a g ainst the g overnme nt and Tribe. Id. We
rema nded for rec alculation bec ause the re w as no evide ntiary basis for that c hoice. I t is thi s so-ca lled “g aug e er ror” ruling that we now must consider in t h is appea l from the district court’s judg ment on rema nd. A brief explanation is i n order . Earlier in the Be ll opinion, in addressing the primary issues in that appea l, we
a ff ir me d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r of reco up me nt f or e xce ss diversions by

the TCI D fo r t he y ear s 1974, 1975, 1978, andU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 13

1979. Id. Th e di str ic t c ourt ha d r e je c te d c la ims of

e xce ss diversions in the other y ear s betwee n 1973 and 1988. In our concluding para g raph, we rema nded for rec alculation of the eff ect of g aug e er ror in the f

our spec i fi c y ear s in which the district c ourt had found exces s d i v er sions. Id. at 1087. On
re m an d , th e go v ern m en tas k edth e co urt t o re ca l cu l at e gau ge err or for those and a dditional y ear s, but the d i strict court limit ed its rec alculation to the four y ears s pecif

ied in the conclusion of the Be ll opinion.

I t now appea

rs that our unde rstandingof the scope of the g aug e error claim was mi staken and that the g overnme nt was claiming the g aug e er

ror c alculation had a ffect ed the flow
measure men t in other y ear s as well. The g overnme nt’s
c on te nti on

ha s b e e n th a t if

the dis tr ic t c ourt

ha d n ot i nit ia lly calc ulated the amounts of water diverted by using the low end of the mar g in of err or, it may have f o u n dthat there wer e excess diversions in othe r y ear s. The expert whose re port the g overnme nt presente d on rema nd found t hat i f the c alculation
o f f l o w h adb ee nm ad e w i th o u tre gar d t o th e f l aw edgau ge err or deter

mination, TCI D’s diversions would have e x cee ded applicable limit s not only

in 1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979, but also in four a dditional y ear s—1973, 1976, 1 9 8 3, and 1986. We the ref ore should not have limit ed rec alculation to the four y ears in wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt ini tia lly fo un d e xce ss diversions. Rather, w e should have order ed re calc ulation of the g aug e er

ror’ s impact in all the y ear s potentially aff ecte d.

Our m ist ake in n ot or deri nga br oa de r r e mand

is understanda

ble, for the parties made only passing ref

ere nces in the briefs a

nd in oral ar g um en t t o t he lar g er sc ope of the g aug e er ror issue, a

nd the g ov er n m ent did not move for rehe aringof our pr ior opinion to correct the mistake. Neve rtheless, a

mistake there was. Indeed, in the body of ourU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 14 opinion, we sug g ested that the nature of the g aug e err or is one that c ou ld p e rm e a te the ana ly sis fo r a ll o f the y e ars a t issu e in the appea l. Id. a t 1085 . Not lim iti ngour a

na ly sis to s pe c if

ic y ear s, we there said that we we re r emanding“for the district court to re calc ulate the amount of the diversions based on the g overnme nt’s published quantities and wit hout reg ard to the confide nce inter

vals.” Id. We did not purport to lim it the
rec alculation to spec ific y ear s. Id.

We do not ordinarily

disturb a judg ment of the c ourt afte r the mandate has issued. See Calderon v. Thompson , 52 3 U .S. 538, 550 (1998) ( noting the “ profound inter est s in repose” that attach t o t h e mandate of a cour t of appe als). The g overnme nt has ca

ndidly ac k nowledg ed that it should have
mov e d f or re c on sid e ratio n of our pr ior op ini on , b ut t hat it did not rec og nize the mist ake until the matter was be fore the district court on re mand. In ligh t of the lar g er issues prese nted in the ea

rlier a ppeal that f

ocused on the reme dy

for the fo ur sp e c if ic y e ars of

e xce ss d iversio ns , it

wa s e a sy enoug h for us to assume that the g aug e e rror was re levant only to those y ear s as well. Corre ction of the mandate af ter it has issued is an extraordinary rem ed y t h at i s not often utiliz ed. See id. a t 54 9– 50 (h old in g that w hil e a pp e llate courts have the rig ht to rec all their own mandates, that power can only be exerc ised in “extraord i nary circ umstances” and is “one of la s t resort, to be held in rese rve a g ainst g rave , unfore seen c ontinge ncies” ).

But this is not o rd i n ary litigation. The g overnme nt throug hout severa l deca des has be en ac ting in a fi duciar y c a p a c i ty o n b e h a l f o f th e T r i b e , an d th e g o v e r n m e nt h a s a fiduciar y duty to undertake all rea sonable mea ns to assure that th e wate rs that sh ou ld f low to Py ram id L ake do so pursuant to the contr olling operating criter ia and proc edure sU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 15 (“O CAPs”). See Tribe v . Morton , 354 F. Supp. at 256. The history of those standa

rds have been w ell documented in prior opinions, and we do not r epea t it here

. Se e Be ll , 602 F.3d at 10 78 ; Tribe v. Morton , 35 4 F . Supp . at 25 6; TCID v. Se cre tar y , 7 42 F .2 d at 52 9– 30 . T he OC APs ind isp uta bly stated the mea sure of

how much water should h ave be en diverted, a

nd the TCI D’s diversions indi sputably exceede d these limits. C orre cting the g aug e err or ca lculation there fore
serves to e ns ur e that th e L ake re c e ive s th e wate r i t ne e ds to sustain itself and the enda ng ere d specie s within it . This was the foc us and purpose of the limitations on div er s i o n s for irrig ation since their inc eption. Tribe v. Morton , 354 F. Supp.
a t 25 4– 55

. I f the mis take is no t c or re c te d, the n th e imm e diate be ne fi c iary

wi ll b e the TCI D, wh ic h is a t f a ult fo r t he e xce ss diversions, and the ultimate loser will be the L ake, which the OC APs are su

pp os e d to pr ote c t. T he e qu ities thus str on g ly favor our fa shioning a

reme dy to restore the prope r bala nce betwee n the TCI D/ag ricultural a nd Tribal/ environmental interests. See G raham v. Balcor Co. , 2 4 1 F. 3 d 1246, 1248 (9th Cir. 2001) (pe r cur iam) (holdingt h at clar ification of previous mandate is appropr iate when ther e is “g ood cause ” and to “pr event injustice” ).

We c an n o t f

a u l t th e d i s tr i c t c o urt i n an y w ay , f or it
corr ectly followed our 2010 mandate. I t was the mandate that was i n err or, and that only we c an cor

rec t. See P lanned Pa re nth oo d o

f Co lum bia

/W illam e tte , I nc . v . Am. Coa l. o

f Lif e Acti v ist s , 518 F.3d 1013, 1022 ( 9th Cir. 2008) (holding that we may amend our

mandate when it was e rrone ous even though a party should have brought the mistake to our
a tte nti on ). On ly by wi thd ra wi ng and c or

re c tin g the mand a te
can w e orde r the district cour t to reca lcul ate the e ffe ct of g aug e e r r o r , n o t o n ly f

o r th e y e ar s 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 , 1 9 7 8, andU NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 16

19 79 , b ut f

or the y e a rs 19 73 , 1 97 6, 19 85 , and 19 86 a s w e ll, to d e te rm ine the amou

nt o f a ny e xce ss d ive rs ion s.

We a ccor dingly withdraw our ear lier mandate and cla rify it b y c ha ng ingthe fi na l pa

ra g ra phof our pr e vio us op ini on to
rea d:

For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district c ourt with respe ct to prejudg ment and postjudgm e n t in te r e s t is v a c a te d and
rema nded for fur ther c onsideration. The judgme nt with resp ect to amounts of
rec oupment for e x cess divers i ons in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1 9 7 9, and spills in 1979 and 1980, as we ll as the denial of rec oupment for excess d iversions in the y ear s 1973, 1976, 1985, and 1986, is vacated and re manded f or rec alculation of the eff

ect of g aug e error. The judgme nt with respe ct t o spills from 1981–84 is v ac ated a

nd rema nded for a dete rmination of the amou

nt o f w a te r s pil le d d

urin g tho se y e ars . T he jud g ment

of the dis tr ic t c ourt

is otherwise a ffirme d.

With re g ar d

t o 1 9 8 5 an d

1 9 8 6 , th e r e m ay

b e m e r i tto TCI D’s contention that there is an a lternative ground in the
rec ord for

the dis trict court’ s finding that rec oupment was unavailable or limit ed for those y ear s, namely , deviation from the OCAP authorized by court order

. We le ave to the district
c ourt to d e te rm ine wh e the r, and to what e xten t, t his consid eration affe cts the re coupment ava ilable for 1985 a nd 1986 once the g aug e er

ror is take n out of the equation.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. B O A RD O F D I RECT O RS 17

We also have befor e us appea ls by Churchill County and the State of Ne vada from the district cour t’s judgme nt on
rem an d

. T h is ju d g me n t, h o w e v e r , d id n o t a lt e r the obligations of either the County or t h e S tate pursua

nt to the 2005 judgme nt. They

wer e not injured or aff

ecte d in a ny way by the jud g me nt o n r e mand fr om Be ll , and thus do not have standing on this appeal. See Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc

. , 312 F.3d 1123, 1126 ( 9th Cir. 2002).

CO NC LU SION Although w e take the ra re step of

correc t i n g a prior mandate, the parties should not take f rom thi s o p inion any signa l that decisions involving water diver sions from the Tr uc k e e an d C ar s o n h av e an y l e s s f i n a l i ty th an d e c i s i on s in ot h er c ases. The rules of pr ocedur e and the purposes of r es jud ic a ta a pp ly no dif fe re ntl y here th an in

oth e r c a se s. Moreove r, the func tion of judicial o v er s i g ht in this and related litigation has be en to maintain th e b alance betwe en the competinginterests of the r ecla mat i o n sy stem and the interests of the T ribe and the environment. Nothing would do more ha rm to the g oal of sust aining that balanc e than sy stemic unce rtainty

in the o b l i g ations of the par ties. Our de c isi on tod ay sh ou ld b e re a d in

that li g ht.

The appea ls f

rom Churchill County and the S t at e of Neva da ar e DI SM ISSED . Our pre vious mandate in B e ll is withdrawn a

nd amende d as provided i n t his opinion. The jud g me nt o f the dis tr ic t court on re mand is VA CA TED . The
matte r i s REMAND ED fo r p ro c e e din g s in a c c or da nce wi th the Be ll mandate a s amende d.