Opinion ID: 783261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Government-Imposed Moratorium

Text: 58 The individual applicant appellees assert that the government's moratorium on transfer applications between 1973 and 1984 13 made any attempt to apply for a transfer during that period futile as a matter of fact and law. Therefore, they assert that the five-year statutory period for forfeiture should be tolled during that period and that a failure to apply for a transfer during the moratorium should have no bearing on whether the applicant intended to abandon their water rights. 59 In Alpine V we rejected this argument because many of the parcels at issue in the transfer applications in that case did not involve periods of non-use that coincided with the moratorium. Alpine V, 291 F.3d at 1076. Even if there were an overlap, equitable relief would not be appropriate unless the applicants could show that they submitted or attempted to submit an application, or made an inquiry into the application process. See id. at 1077. 60 Applicant appellees contend that requiring applicants to show that they applied for a transfer during the moratorium would amount to a requirement that the applicants show that they engaged in a futile act. See Engelmann v. Westergard, 98 Nev. 348, 353, 647 P.2d 385, 389 (Nev. 1982) ([T]he doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not require one to initiate and participate in proceedings ... which are vain and futile.). This argument is similar to the one we rejected in Alpine II, in which the applicants argued that because they did not know that they even had the right to transfer until our 1983 Alpine I decision, it would be unjust to impose a requirement on the landowners that they apply for transfers, when they did not know that the law applied to them. Alpine II, 878 F.2d at 1223. 61 Rejecting this claim in Alpine II we stated: Section 8 of the Reclamation Act expressly disclaims any intention of displacing state water law except to insure that landowners receive a water duty consistent with beneficial use. If land-owners disregarded this express congressional directive, they did so at their own risk. Id. Here, the Alpine Decree and state law clearly required 14 that the landowners file or attempt to file transfer applications. Indeed, even during the moratorium, the United States indicated that it would continue to accept the applications and process them up to the point of approval. Although there could be no approvals until the United States was satisfied that the TCID was in compliance, there was an opportunity for the landowners to comply with state law. 62