Opinion ID: 2508124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balance of Interests and Prejudices

Text: To evaluate whether the water court abused its discretion we must consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Although not binding on us, the Adolph Coors factors provide a good framework for our analysis. The applicable Adolph Coors factors are: 1) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained, 2) the adequacy of relief available in state court, 3) comity, and 4) the need for comprehensive adjudication and attendant desire to avoid piecemeal litigation. [5] First, as to the order of jurisdiction, the fact that the state water court obtained jurisdiction over the Black Canyon case before the federal case was initiated does not persuade us that the water court abused its discretion in granting the stay. The dual pending actions involving the Black Canyon water right will not resolve the same issue. Accordingly, this case is distinguishable from Colorado River, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a reserved rights adjudication initiated by the United States in federal court because a state water court was in the process of adjudicating the same case and the same rights. 424 U.S. at 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236. In this case, the state and federal proceedings involve different parties, claims, and issues. The order in which the state and federal courts obtained jurisdiction is even less compelling given the fact that the federal court has the sole authority to resolve the federal claims. Adolph Coors presented a very different scenario. There, the federal court declined to stay its proceedings because the state case was in its initial stages and it was unclear whether the state court would even have jurisdiction to try the case. 89 F.R.D. at 153. Second, consideration of the relief available to the parties favors the award of a stay in this case. This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). Accordingly, if the water court were to proceed with this case, and enter a decree quantifying the United States' federal reserved water right, res judicata would bar the United States from later claiming a broader reserved right even if the federal court were to decide that the United States violated federal law when it amended its application. Because of this avoidable potential for conflict between federal and state courts, comity, the third factor, favors the award of a stay in this case. We note as well that petitioners will not suffer the same level of prejudice if the water court's stay is upheld. Because the federal claims are necessarily intertwined with quantification of the United States' reserved water right, several of the petitioners have intervened in the federal case. Notwithstanding their invocation of the original jurisdiction of this court, petitioners have taken steps in order to protect their interests in the federal forum, although with the obvious result that they may incur considerable cost and effort to do so. The stay will cause a delay of the water court's quantification proceeding. Although that delay is regrettable, we note that this proceeding has already been pending for nearly thirty years. Petitioners can show no great harm attributable to this relatively short delay. As we discussed earlier in this opinion, the state and the United States recently sought and were granted a twelve month delay by the water court in order to settle the case. The Environmental Opposers, however, were excluded from the settlement negotiations. The water court explicitly retained its jurisdiction to quantify the United States' reserved water right. The fact that the federal case may decide that the United States violated federal law when it reduced its water claim does not amount to a quantification of the water right. As the Supreme Court stated in SUWA II, under the APA, a federal court may direct an agency to act, but may not tell it what decision to reach. See, SUWA II, 124 S.Ct. at 2379. Because the federal action cannot and will not quantify the water right, we find that the stay order is not an abdication of the water court's jurisdiction. When the water court proceeding resumes, petitioners may still argue that the purposes of the United States' reservation of the Black Canyon are narrow, and that a modest amount of water is adequate to satisfy those purposes. The Petitioners do not face the res judicata barrier that will confront the Environmental Opposers if there were no stay. Fourth and finally, the need for comprehensive adjudication and the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation do not warrant a lifting of the stay in this case. Because of the exclusivity of the federal court's jurisdiction over the federal claims, dual proceedings are necessary and the McCarran Amendment's policy to avoid piecemeal litigation is inapplicable. As stated above, resolution of the federal case may influence the parameters of the water court's decision, but it will not quantify the United States' reserved water right.