OCR Text |
Show 500 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit.334 In regard to this legislation, various and rather complicated questions have arisen concerning circumstances in which the sovereign immunity of the Federal government may or may not be invoked.33S 334 66 Stat. 560 (1952), 43 U.S.C. § 666(a) (1970). Section 666 also provides: "(b) Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative. "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream." 335In regard to such matters, see, e.g., E. H. Morreale, "Federal-State Rights and Relations," in 2 "Waters and Water Rights" § 106 (R. E. Clark ed. 1967); Comment, "Adjudication of Water Rights Claimed by the United States-Appreciation of Common-Law Remedies and the McCar^an Amendment of 1952," 48 Cal. L. Rev. 94 (1960). In a recent opinion the United States Supreme Court said inter alia: "The consent to joint the United States 'in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source' would seem to be all-inclusive. We deem almost frivolous the suggestion that the Eagle [River, a tributary of the Colorado River] and its tributaries are not a 'river system' within the meaning of the Act. No suit by any State could possibly encompass all of the water rights in the entire Colorado River which runs through or touches many States. The 'river system' must be read as embracing one within the particular State's jurisdiction. With that to one side, the first clause of § 666(a)(l), read literally, would seem to cover this case for 'rights to the use of water of a river system' is broad enough to embrace 'reserved' waters. "* * * § 666(a)(l) has no exceptions and * * *, as we read it, includes appropria- tive rights, riparian rights, and reserved rights. "It is said that this adjudication is not a 'general' one as required by Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 618 [1963]. This proceeding, unlike the one in Dugan, is not a private one to determine whether named claimants have priority over the United States. The whole community of claims is involved and as Senator McCarran, Chairman of the Committee reporting on the bill, said in reply to Senator Magnuson: 'S. 18 is not intended ... to be used for any other purpose than to allow the United States to be joined in a suit wherein it is necessary to adjudicate all of the rights of various owners on a given stream. This is so because unless all of the parties owning or in the process of acquiring water rights on a particular stream can be joined as parties defendant, any subsequent decree would be of little value.' "It is said, however, that since this is a supplemental [Colorado] adjudication only those who claim water rights acquired since the last adjudication of that water district are before the court. It is also said that the earliest priority date decreed in such an adjudication must be later than the last priority date decreed in the preceding |