OCR Text |
Show 498 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES Parties Following are some considerations regarding parties to water rights litigation. Proper and Necessary or Indispensable Parties The Idaho Supreme Court has indicated that in an ordinary civil action, an appropriator of water from a stream is a proper party to a suit affecting rights of appropriation of the waters of such stream, but he may not be an indispensable party because the judgment and decree in the suit will be effective as to the rights and interests of the parties to the action, as between themselves, regardless of the fact that other claimants on the stream have not been parties to the suit.327 Nor, in a suit brought to adjudicate water rights on a stream system, are the consumers under a company which appropriated water for the purpose of sale, rental, and distribution, indispensable parties in determining and adjudicating their various rental rights.328 In several Texas water rights cases decided early in this century, which in our classification would be ordinary civil actions, questions of proper and necessary parties were raised. Thus, it was observed that these words were often used loosely in the decisions, making it difficult to determine their proper classification. "It is apparent, however, that necessary parties, in the strict sense of that word, are indispensable parties-parties so vitally interested in the subject-matter of the suit as that a final decree cannot be rendered without their presence."329 On the other hand, persons who would not be bound by any judgment that might be entered in a suit, and whose rights could not be affected in any way, are not necessary parties.330 In a suit brought by a riparian owner to establish water rights as against a water improvement district and certain others, a Texas court of civil appeals indicated that other water users on the same stream may be interested because the subject matter relates to their own water supply. But such a mere interest, which does not rise to the dignity of a material or substantial interest, does not necessitate the joinder of 327Frost v. Idaho Irr. Co., 19 Idaho 372, 114 Pac. 38 (1911). In an action to set aside or interpret parts of a decree fixing water priorities, all parties to the decree, although they may be proper parties, are not indispensable parties. Gile v. Laidlaw, 52 Idaho 665, 20 Pac. (2d) 215 (1933). 328Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 458, 94 Pac. 761 (1908). 319Biggs v. Miller, 147 S.W. 632, 636-638 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912). "The rule applicable here is that where others not parties to the proceedings have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and a final decree cannot be made without affecting their interest in such manner as may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience, the persons so affected are necessary parties to the proceedings." Matagorda Canal Co. v. Markham Irr. Co., 154 S.W. 1176, 1180 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913). 330 Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 2 v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. I, 222 S.W. 665, 667 (Tex. Civ. App. 1920, error refused). |