FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONO COUNTY, County

Counsel,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

MINERAL COUNTY,

Intervenor-PlaintiffAppellant,

WALKER LAKE WORKING

GROUP,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

WALKER RIVER PAIUTE

TRIBE,

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

v.

WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION

DISTRICT; NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE;

FENILI FAMILY TRUST, c/o

Peter Fenili and Veronica

Fenili, Trustees; SIX N

No. 15-16342

D.C. No.

3:73-cv-00128-RCJWGC

ORDER CERTIFYING

A QUESTION TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF

NEVADA
2 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

RANCH, INC., c/o Richard and

Cynthia Nuti; MICHAEL NUTI;

NANCY NUTI; RALPH E. NUTI;

MARY E. NUTI; LAWRENCE

M. NUTI; LESLIE NUTI; MICA

FARMS, LLC, c/o Mike

Faretto; JOHN AND LURA

WEAVER FAMILY TRUST, c/o

Lura Weaver, Trustee; SMITH

VALLEY GARAGE, INC., c/o

Dan Smith and Shawna

Smith; DONALD GIORGI;

LORIE MCMAHON; MERLE

MCMAHON; CENTENNIAL

LIVESTOCK; LYON COUNTY;

ANNETT’S MONO VILLAGE;

F.I.M. CORPORATION; R.N.

FULSTONE COMPANY; JAMES

T. FOUSEKIS, Trustee; CHRIS

H. GANSBERG, JR.; FAYE E.

GANSBERG; TODD

GANSBERG; HUNEWILL LAND

& LIVESTOCK CO., INC.;

DAVID SCEIRINE; PAMELA

HAAS; VIRGINIA LAKE

MUTUAL WATER COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 3

Filed May 22, 2018

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Raymond C. Fisher

and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY*

Water Rights

In an appeal raising issues pertaining to Nevada state

water law, the panel certified to the Supreme Court of Nevada

the following question:

Does the public trust doctrine apply to rights

already adjudicated and settled under the

doctrine of prior appropriation and, if so, to

what extent?

In light of its decision to certify the issue, the panel

withdrew submission of this appeal for decision, and stayed

all further proceedings in this case pending final action by the

Supreme Court of Nevada, save for any petition for rehearing

regarding this order or a concurrently filed memorandum

disposition.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate

Procedure, we respectfully certify to the Supreme Court of

Nevada the question of law set forth in Section III of this

order. The answer to the certified question may determine an

issue pending before this court and its resolution will have

significant implications for Nevada state water law. There is

no clearly controlling precedent in the decisions of the

Nevada Supreme Court.

We hold Mineral County’s public trust claim for the

reallocation of the waters of Walker River and the Takings

Clause claim in abeyance pending the result of certification.

I. Background

The circumstances here are virtually identical to those

that led to the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Mineral

County v. Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural

Resources, 20 P.3d 800, 802–05 (Nev. 2001), in which

Mineral County and the Walker Lake Working Group (the

“Working Group”) brought essentially the same suit as this

one. In Mineral County, the Nevada Supreme Court

ultimately declined to exercise jurisdiction in light of the

federal district court’s continuing and exclusive jurisdiction

over the Walker River Basin litigation. See id. at 807. We

reproduce the relevant background here in brief.

A. The Walker River Basin and Walker Lake’s Decline

The Walker River Basin covers about 4000 square miles,

running northeast from its origins in the Sierra Nevada

Mountains in California before turning south and ultimately
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 5

flowing into Walker Lake in Nevada. The first quarter of the

basin lies in California, and California accounts for a majority

of the precipitation and surface water flow into the basin. 

The vast majority of the water is consumed across the border

in Nevada.

Walker Lake is about 13 miles long, five miles wide and

90 feet deep – a large lake by most any measure. But its size

and volume have shrunk significantly since they were first

measured in 1882. By 1996, Walker Lake had retained just

50 percent of its 1882 surface area and 28 percent of its 1882

volume. Today’s Walker Lake also suffers from high

concentrations of total dissolved solids (“TDS”) – meaning it

has a high salt content, low oxygen content and a high

temperature.

These conditions have drastically degraded the lake’s

environmental and economic well-being. The high TDS

concentrations have proven so inhospitable to fish species

that, according to Mineral County, much of the lake’s fishing

industry “has been eliminated for the time being.” Walker

Lake’s decline also threatens its status as an important shelter

for migratory birds, and it has “drive[n] away the many

Nevadans and other Americans who used Walker Lake for

recreational enjoyment and economically productive

activities.” Although the parties dispute the cause of Walker

Lake’s troubles, it seems clear that upstream appropriations

play at least some part, together with declining precipitation

levels and natural lake recession over time.

B. Litigation Over Water Rights in the Basin

In an effort to protect and rehabilitate Walker Lake,

Mineral County intervened in the long-running litigation over
6 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

water rights in the Walker River Basin. That litigation began

in 1902, when one cattle and land company sued another in

the United States District Court for the District of Nevada

over appropriations from the Walker River. After

considerable back and forth in state and federal court –

including a Supreme Court decision holding that the Nevada

federal court had prior, exclusive jurisdiction over the action,

see Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U.S. 258,

262 (1910) – the case ended in 1919.

Five years later, the United States brought a new action in

Nevada federal court, seeking to establish the water rights of

the Walker Lake Paiute Tribe. After 12 more years of

litigation – bringing us to 1936 – that proceeding resulted in

the Walker River Decree. The Walker River Decree

adjudicated the water rights of hundreds of claimants under

the doctrine of prior appropriation.1 The Decree also created

the Walker River Commission and the United States Board of

Water Commissioners. The federal district court in Nevada

has maintained jurisdiction over the Decree and its

administration ever since.

In 1987, the Paiute Tribe intervened in the Walker River

litigation to establish procedures for reallocating water rights

under the Decree. Since that proceeding’s conclusion in

1988, the Nevada State Engineer reviews all applications to

change allocations under the Decree in Nevada, subject to

1 Under the doctrine of prior appropriation, “[t]he first appropriator

of the water of a stream passing through the public lands . . . has the right

to insist that the water shall be subject to his use and enjoyment to the

extent of his original appropriation, and that its quality shall not be

impaired so as to defeat the purpose of its appropriation.” Lobdell v.

Simpson, 2 Nev. 274, 277–78 (1866) (quoting Butte Canal &Ditch Co. v.

Vaughn, 11 Cal. 143, 153–54 (1858)).
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 7

review by the Nevada federal district court. It appears that

Nevada’s prior appropriation law, which has largely been

codified, governs the Engineer’s decisions and the district

court’s review. See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370; see also

Greg Walch, Water Law: Treading Water Law — A Nevada

Water Rights Primer, 6 Nev. Law. 18, 18 (Nov. 1998)

(discussing the history of prior appropriation and its

codification in Nevada). Next, in 1991, the Paiute Tribe and

the United States sought recognition of the Tribe’s right to a

certain additional amount of water from the Walker River,

under a principle that Native American tribes have superior

water rights based on their relationship to the federal

government. That case is pending before this panel. See

United States v. Walker River Irrigation Dist., No. 15-16478.

C. Mineral County’s Intervention

In 1994, Mineral County moved to intervene in the

Decree litigation. The district court granted the motion in

2013. The amended complaint in intervention alleges that

“[a]ctivities and businesses attributable to the presence and

use of Walker Lake represent[] approximately 50% of the

economy of Mineral County.” The complaint asks the Decree

court, “pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction under . . . the

. . . Decree, [to] reopen and modify the final Decree to

recognize the rights of Mineral County . . . and the public to

have minimum levels [of water] to maintain the viability of

Walker Lake.” Mineral County seeks recognition “that a

minimum of 127,000 acre/feet [of water] per year to Walker
8 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

Lake is . . . required under the doctrine of maintenance of the

public trust.”2

The Working Group – already a party to this litigation as

a right-holder under the Decree – supports Mineral County’s

position. Because of the posture of this case, the Working

Group is considered a defendant as to Mineral County’s

intervention. But the Working Group “always has supported

efforts to transfer water rights for use in Walker Lake . . . and

has supported the enforcement of the public trust doctrine for

this same purpose.”

In 2015, the district court dismissed the amended

complaint in intervention. First, the district court held

Mineral County lacked standing to assert its public trust

claim. It concluded Mineral County’s claim “was based

purely on a parens patriae theory” of standing – i.e., that

Mineral County did not assert any of its own interests, only

those of its citizens – and that a county lacks the ability to sue

as parens patriae.

Notwithstanding its conclusion on standing, the district

court also addressed the merits of Mineral County’s public

trust claim. It concluded the public trust doctrine may factor

into future allocations of water, but that using the doctrine to

reallocate rights already adjudicated under the Decree would

constitute a taking and require just compensation. Invoking

2 Under the public trust doctrine, states hold navigable waterways

within their borders in trust for the good of the public. See Lawrence v.

Clark County, 254 P.3d 606, 607 (Nev. 2011); see also Mineral County,

20 P.3d at 807 (Rose, J., concurring) (“In its most fundamental terms, the

public trust doctrine provides that . . . all of a state’s navigable waterways

are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people and that a state

official’s control of those waters is forever subject to that trust.”).
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 9

the political question doctrine, the court concluded it lacked

authority to order Nevada to effectuate such a taking. The

district court also held, without analysis, that Walker Lake is

not part of the Walker River Basin under the Decree, and

therefore that the Decree prohibits allocating any water

specifically to the lake.

Mineral County timely appealed. We have concluded the

district court erred in dismissing the amended complaint in

intervention for lack of standing.

3 The remaining issue –

whether the Walker River Decree can be amended to allow

for certain minimum flows of water to reach Walker Lake –

depends on whether the public trust doctrine applies to rights

previously adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior

appropriation and permits alteration of prior allocations.4

This is an important question of Nevada water law we believe

should be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court.

II. Discussion

The Nevada Supreme Court expressly recognized the

public trust doctrine under Nevada law in Lawrence v. Clark

County, 254 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2011). Lawrence involved an

attempt bythe Nevada legislature to transfer state-owned land

to Clark County. See id. at 608. Because the land may have

been a navigable waterway when Nevada joined the United

3

In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition, we hold Mineral

County has standing to assert its public trust claim. Furthermore, we have

concurrently decided that Walker Lake is within the Walker River Basin. 

See United States v. U.S. Bd. of Water Comm’rs, No. 15-16316.

4 We hold the subsequent takings claim in abeyance pending the

result of certification.
10 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

States, the Nevada State Land Registrar refused to transfer

title, citing the public trust’s prohibition on alienating land

held in trust for the public. See id. The Nevada Supreme

Court remanded after setting out a three-part test for assessing

whether the public trust doctrine permits alienation of state

land. See id. at 616–17.5

Lawrence, although formally recognizing the doctrine for

the first time, traced public trust principles in Nevada law

back to the state’s founding, concluding the doctrine was

“based on a policy reflected in the Nevada Constitution,

Nevada statutes, and the inherent limitations on the state’s

sovereign power.” Id. at 613. The court also noted it had

applied public trust principles in several of its earlier

decisions. One of those decisions, Mineral County v. Nevada

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, appears

to be particularly relevant here.

Mineral County involved the very case now under

consideration, filed by Mineral County and the Working

Group directly in the Nevada Supreme Court while the

county’s motion to intervene in this case was pending. 

Although the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the action

based on the federal court’s prior exclusive jurisdiction, two

aspects of Mineral County are relevant here. First, the

Nevada Supreme Court effectively invited the federal court

to certify the public trust question at issue here. See Mineral

County, 20 P.3d at 807 n.35 (“[Mineral County and the

Working Group] argue that if their motion to intervene in the

5 This test appears to be of limited relevance here because it

addresses alienation of trust lands. The issues here involve the scope of

the public trust doctrine and its relationship to the doctrine of prior

appropriation and Nevada’s statutory water law.
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 11

federal court is eventually granted, they will seek to have this

court decide the scope of the public trust doctrine pursuant to

the federal abstention doctrine. If the federal court reviews

this question, it can certify a question regarding the public

trust doctrine pursuant to NRAP 5; therefore, the issue need

not necessarily be addressed via the extraordinary remedy of

a writ.”).

Second, in Mineral County, Justice Rose (joined by

Justice Shearing) wrote a concurrence addressing in broad

strokes the public trust doctrine’s application in this case. 

Justice Rose opined:

Although the original objectives of the

public trust were to protect the public’s rights

in navigation, commerce, and fishing, the trust

has evolved to encompass additional public

values – including recreational and ecological

uses. Additionally, although the original

scope of the public trust reached only

navigable water, the trust has evolved to

encompass non-navigable tributaries that feed

navigable bodies of water. This extension of

the doctrine is natural and necessarywhere, as

here, the navigable water’s existence is

wholly dependent on tributaries that appear to

be over-appropriated.

. . . [T]he existence of the public trust

doctrine in Nevada appears to be beyond

debate. . . . This court has itself recognized

that . . . public ownership of water is the most

fundamental tenet of Nevada water law. 

Additionally, we have noted that those
12 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

holding vested water rights do not own or

acquire title to water, but merely enjoy a right

to the beneficial use of the water. This right,

however, is forever subject to the public trust,

which at all times forms the outer boundaries

of permissible government action with respect

to public trust resources. In this manner, then,

the public trust doctrine operates

simultaneously with the system of prior

appropriation.

. . . .

If the current law governing the water

engineer does not clearly direct the engineer

to continuously consider in the course of his

work the public’s interest in Nevada’s natural

water resources, then the law is deficient. It is

then appropriate, if not our constitutional

duty, to expressly reaffirm the engineer’s

continuing responsibility as a public trustee to

allocate and supervise water rights so that the

appropriations do not substantially impair the

public interest in the lands and waters

remaining.

Id. at 807–09 (footnotes and internal quotation marks

omitted). No Nevada Supreme Court decision has formally

adopted Justice Rose’s concurrence, but Lawrence discussed

it as persuasive authority in the development of Nevada’s

public trust law. See 254 P.3d at 610–11.

In light of Lawrence, all parties agree the public trust

doctrine exists in Nevada. They disagree, however, over the
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 13

doctrine’s scope and whether it permits reallocation of rights

settled under the separate doctrine of prior appropriation by

the Walker River Decree. No controlling Nevada precedent

reconciles these doctrines, and the parties advance conflicting

proposals.

Mineral County, for example, contends the public trust

doctrine requires the State Engineer to reconsider previous

allocations and, in doing so, to reserve a specified minimum

flow for Walker Lake regardless of any other rights or

considerations. Although Mineral County points to a number

of general principles suggesting the public trust doctrine

applies to Walker Lake in some form, it has not presented

authority for a version of the doctrine that holds absolute

supremacy over the competing doctrine of prior

appropriation.

The Lyon County appellees sit at the opposite end of the

spectrum. They contend, essentially, that once water rights

have been adjudicated and settled by decree, they are vested

and no longer within the purview of the public trust doctrine. 

Lyon County is correct that Nevada considers water rights

settled by decree “vested.” See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.090 et

seq. (entitled “Adjudication of Vested Water Rights”). 

Nevada law refers to water rights settled by decree as “final”

and “conclusive,” id. § 533.210, and the Nevada State

Engineer – charged with administering Nevada’s statutory

water law – may neither “carry out his or her duties . . . in a

manner that conflicts with any . . . decree or order issued by

a state or federal court,” id. § 533.0245, nor authorize any

change in water use that “is inconsistent with any applicable

federal or state decree,” id. § 533.3703. There is, moreover,

significant authority stressing the importance of finality in the

adjudication of water rights. See, e.g., Arizona v. California,
14 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

460 U.S. 605, 620 (1983) (“Certainty of rights is particularly

important with respect to water rights in the Western United

States. . . . The doctrine of prior appropriation . . . is itself

largely a product of the compelling need for certainty in the

holding and use of water rights.”).

Lyon County’s position nonetheless appears to suffer

from the same shortcoming as that of Mineral County. It

does not explain why the public trust doctrine must

completely yield to the doctrine of prior appropriation (or,

more precisely, to the decrees resulting from adjudications

under the prior appropriation doctrine and Nevada’s statutory

water law). The principles of finality on which Lyon County

rests are encapsulated in Nevada’s statutes and endorsed by

the Supreme Court, but it is not clear they would compel

Nevada to conclude that rights already adjudicated are

exempt from the public trust.

There is significant authority suggesting rights already

adjudicated may not be always and forever exempt from the

public trust. For example, the Nevada Supreme Court has

held:

the most fundamental tenet of Nevada water

law [is that] “the water of all sources of water

supply within the boundaries of the state

whether above or beneath the surface of the

ground, belongs to the public.” Indeed, even

those holding certificated, vested, or perfected

water rights do not own or acquire title to

water.

Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. Nevada, 944 P.2d 835, 842 (Nev.

1997) (alteration omitted) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat.
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 15

§ 533.025). Based on this statement, Justice Rose concluded

in Mineral County that even “those holding vested water

rights” hold “[t]his right . . . forever subject to the public

trust.” 20 P.3d at 808. Quoting Justice Rose, Lawrence said

the same thing in its exposition of the public trust doctrine

(albeit without holding that vested water rights are subject to

the public trust). See 254 P.3d at 611; see also Mineral

County., 20 P.3d at 808–09 (Rose, J., concurring) (opining

that “the public trust doctrine operates simultaneously with

the system of prior appropriation” and urging the Nevada

Supreme Court “to expressly reaffirm the [Nevada State]

[E]ngineer’s continuing responsibility as a public trustee to

allocate and supervise water rights [pursuant to the public

trust doctrine]”). Thus, Nevada might not altogether exempt

vested, adjudicated rights from the public trust doctrine.

Under Justice Rose’s view, that water rights have been

settled by adjudication and decree may be relevant to

balancing the public trust doctrine against competing

principles of Nevada water law. But it does not necessarily

mean the public trust – itself a fundamental principle of law

– cannot disturb them.

Faced with a similar question in National Audubon

Society v. Superior Court, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983), the

California Supreme Court outlined the competing values

underlying the public trust doctrine and doctrine of prior

appropriation and, rather than deeming one doctrine supreme,

balanced them:

This case brings together for the first time

two systems of legal thought: the

appropriative water rights system which since

the days of the gold rush has dominated
16 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

California water law, and the public trust

doctrine which, after evolving as a shield for

the protection of tidelands, now extends its

protective scope to navigable lakes. Ever

since we first recognized that the public trust

protects environmental and recreational

values, the two systems of legal thought have

been on a collision course. They meet in a

unique and dramatic setting which highlights

the clash of values. Mono Lake is a scenic

and ecological treasure of national

significance, imperiled by continued

diversions of water; yet, the need of Los

Angeles for water is apparent, its reliance on

rights granted by the board evident, the cost of

curtailing diversions substantial.

. . . The prosperity and habitability of

much of this state requires the diversion of

great quantities of water from its streams for

purposes unconnected to any navigation,

commerce, fishing, recreation, or ecological

use relating to the source stream. The state

must have the power to grant nonvested

usufructuary rights to appropriate water even

if diversions harm public trust uses. Approval

of such diversion without considering public

trust values, however, may result in needless

destruction of those values.

Id. at 712 (citations omitted). This approach appears similar

to the one Justice Rose described – albeit in only general

terms – in his Mineral County concurrence. An approach

along these lines would permit, but not require, reallocation
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 17

of water rights that were previously settled. See Mineral

County., 20 P.3d at 808–09 (Rose, J., concurring) (the two

systems operate simultaneously, and the State Engineer must

at least “consider” the public trust in making allocation

decisions).6

We conclude that whether, and to what extent, the public

trust doctrine applies to appropriative rights settled under the

Walker River Decree is an open question. Because this

question has significant implications for Nevada’s water laws

and because we cannot be certain how the Nevada Supreme

Court would resolve this matter, certification on this question

of law is appropriate.

III. Question Certified to the Nevada Supreme Court

The question of law we certify is:

Does the public trust doctrine apply to rights

already adjudicated and settled under the

6 LyonCounty and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) also

suggest Nevada law already incorporates the public trust doctrine by

requiring that appropriated water be put to a “beneficial use.” The Nevada

Supreme Court has not yet considered this question. As in National

Audubon, “no responsible body has ever” expressly considered the public

trust in making allocation decisions. Nat’l Audubon, 658 P.2d at 728; see

also Mineral County, 20 P.3d at 808 (Rose, J., concurring) (“If the current

law governing the water engineer does not clearly direct the engineer to

continuously consider . . . the public’s interest in Nevada’s natural water

resources, then the law is deficient.”).
18 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

doctrine of prior appropriation and, if so, to

what extent?7

IV. Conclusion

Mineral County’s appeal presents an open and important

question under Nevada law that may be determinative of an

issue essential to the resolution of the claims raised in the

present case. We therefore respectfully request that the

Supreme Court of Nevada accept and decide the question

certified. “We recognize that the [Nevada Supreme] Court

may, in its discretion, reword the certified question.” 

Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich, 627 F.3d 1137, 1140

(9th Cir. 2010). We further agree to abide by the decision of

the Nevada Supreme Court as specified in Rule 5 of the

Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, which states “[t]he

written opinion of the Supreme Court stating the law

governing the questions certified . . . shall be res judicata as

to the parties.” Nev. R. App. P. 5(g).

In light of our decision to certify the issue set forth above,

the submission of this appeal for decision is withdrawn, and

all further proceedings in this case before our court are stayed

pending final action by the Supreme Court of Nevada, save

for any petition for rehearing regarding this order or the

concurrently filed memorandum disposition. The Clerk is

directed to administratively close this docket, pending further

order. The Clerk of this court shall forward a copy of this

7

 If the Nevada Supreme Court determines the public trust doctrine

applies and allows for reallocation of rights settled under the doctrine of

prior appropriation, it may wish to answer a further question: does the

abrogation ofsuch adjudicated or vested rights constitute a “taking” under

the Nevada Constitution requiring payment of just compensation?
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 19

order, under official seal, to the Supreme Court of Nevada,

along with copies of all briefs and excerpts of record that

have been filed with this court. The parties shall notify the

Clerk of this court within 14 days of any decision by the

Nevada Supreme Court to accept or decline certification. If

the Nevada Supreme Court accepts certification, the parties

shall then notify the Clerk of this court within 14 days of the

issuance of the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion.

Supplemental Material

Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate

Procedure, we include here the designation of the parties who

would be the appellants and respondents in the Nevada

Supreme Court, as well as the names and addresses of

counsel.

Appellants:

Mineral County, Nevada and Walker Lake Working Group

Sean A. Rowe

Mineral County District Attorney

P.O. Box 1210

Hawthorne, NV 89415

Simeon M. Herskovits

Advocates for Community & Environment

P.O. Box 1075

El Prado, NM 87529-1075

Attorneys for Mineral County, Nevada and Walker Lake

Working Group
20 MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST.

Respondents:

Lyon County, Nevada et al. (Centennial Livestock,

Bridgeport Ranchers and the Schroeder Group)

Stephen B. Rye, District Attorney

Lyon County

31 S. Main Street

Yerington, NV 89447

Attorney for Lyon County

Jerry M. Snyder

429 West Plumb

Reno, NV 89509

Attorney for Lyon County

Roderick E. Walston

Steven G. Martin

Best Best & Krieger LLP

2201 N. Main Street, Suite 390

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Attorneys for Centennial Livestock

Therese A. Ure

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.

440 Marsh Avenue

Reno, NV 89509

Attorney for the Schroeder Group

Walker River Irrigation District

Gordon H. DePaoli

Dale E. Ferguson

Woodburn and Wedge
MONO CTY. V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DIST. 21

6100 Neil Road, Suite 500

Reno, NV 89511

Attorneys for Walker River Irrigation District

Nevada Department of Wildlife

Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General

Bryan L. Stockton, Senior Deputy Attorney General

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, NV 89701-4717

Attorneys for Nevada Department of Wildlife

County of Mono, California 

Stacey Simon, Acting County Counsel 

Stephen M. Kerins, Deputy County Counsel 

Office of the County Counsel

County of Mono

P.O. Box 2415

Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 

Attorneys for County of Mono, California

QUESTION CERTIFIED; PROCEEDINGS

STAYED.

_____________________________

Jay S. Bybee

United States Circuit Judge, Presiding