530 U.S. 392 (2000)
In 1952 Arizona invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to settle a dispute with California over rights to use water from the Colorado River system.1 Nevada intervened and Utah and New Mexico were joined as defendants.2 The United States intervened to assert water rights on behalf of five Indian reservations, including the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation of the Quechan Tribe.3 The Court appointed Simon Rifkind as Special Master.4
The first round of litigation culminated in the 1963 decision in Arizona I.5 A March 9, 1964 decree quantified water rights for the reservations based on practicably irrigable acreage within their then-understood boundaries.6 The decree expressly left open the possibility of later adjustments if reservation boundaries were finally determined.7
In 1978, the Secretary of the Interior issued an order recognizing the Quechan Tribe's entitlement to approximately 25,000 acres of disputed boundary lands that had been addressed in an 1893 agreement between the Tribe and the United States.8 This order reversed the Department's 1936 position that the Tribe had unconditionally ceded those lands.9 The United States and the Tribe thereafter sought additional water rights for the boundary lands in the ongoing proceedings.10 At the same time the Tribe pursued claims before the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 320 challenging the validity or effect of the 1893 agreement on alternative theories.11
The District Court litigation challenging the Secretary's boundary determination proceeded with participation by the United States, Arizona, California, several water districts, and three tribes.12 The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that the Quiet Title Act preserved the United States' sovereign immunity.13 The Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided Court in 1989, resulting in dismissal of that action.14 In August 1983 the United States and the Tribe settled Docket No. 320 for a payment of $15 million.15 The Claims Court entered a consent judgment barring further claims between those parties on the matters involved while stipulating that the judgment rested on compromise and created no precedent.16
After the District Court action was dismissed, the State parties moved in 1989 to reopen the 1964 decree to address boundary and water rights issues for the Fort Yuma and two other reservations.17 The Court granted the motion.18 Special Master Frank J. McGarr was appointed following the death of his predecessor.19 The Master recommended rejecting the additional water claims for the Fort Yuma Reservation on the ground that the 1983 consent judgment precluded them, while rejecting preclusion based on Arizona I.20 The Master also recommended approving proposed settlements of the boundary and water disputes for the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations.21
The State parties filed an exception to the Master's rejection of Arizona I preclusion.22 The United States and the Tribe filed exceptions to the Master's acceptance of Claims Court preclusion.23 No party excepted to the Master's recommendations concerning the Fort Mojave and Colorado River settlements.24
Whether the State parties forfeited their defense that claims for additional water rights for the Fort Yuma Reservation boundary lands are precluded by the 1964 decree?25
While technical rules of preclusion are not strictly applicable in a single ongoing original action, the principles upon which these rules are founded should inform the decision, and res judicata is an affirmative defense ordinarily lost if not timely raised under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).26
Yes. The State parties could have raised the preclusion defense in 1979 in response to the United States' motion for a supplemental decree granting additional water rights for the Fort Yuma Reservation.27 They could also have raised it in 1982 when Arizona II was briefed and argued.28 Instead they raised the argument for the first time in 1989 when they moved to reopen the decree, despite having every opportunity and incentive to press it earlier.29
The State parties forfeited their preclusion defense based on the 1964 decree.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by O'connor And Thomas, Jj.
Chief Justice Rehnquist would reach the merits of the res judicata defense rather than deem it forfeited.31 He noted that the only pleadings were filed in the 1950s before any such defense could have been asserted.32
The 1977 and 1979 motions were not comprehensive pleadings.33 Neither the Special Master nor the Court focused on the merits of the boundary dispute in Arizona II.34 He concluded that the State parties properly raised the defense in their 1989 motion without objection from the United States or the Tribe.35 The Court should therefore decide whether the claim is barred by res judicata.36
Whether the 1983 consent judgment in Docket No. 320 precludes the United States and the Quechan Tribe from asserting claims to additional water rights for the disputed boundary lands?37
Consent judgments ordinarily support claim preclusion but not issue preclusion unless it is clear that the parties intended their agreement to have such an effect.38 Issue preclusion attaches only when an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment and the determination is essential to the judgment.39
No. The 1983 consent judgment settled the Tribe's claims on alternative and mutually exclusive theories of recovery.40 There was no election between those theories.41 The issue of ownership of the disputed boundary lands was never actually litigated and decided.42 The settlement was therefore too opaque to support issue preclusion on the question of title.43
The 1983 consent judgment does not preclude the claims for additional water rights.44
Whether the proposed settlements resolving water rights disputes for the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations should be approved?45
The Court approves uncontested recommendations of the Special Master to approve proposed settlements of water rights disputes.46
Yes. No party filed an exception to the Special Master's recommendations to approve the proposed settlements for the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations.47 The settlements specify boundary locations, award limited additional water, preclude further claims, and preserve competing title claims.48 They achieve the aim of determining water rights.49
The proposed settlements for the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations are approved.50