OCR Text |
Show SOME GENERAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION 499 these parties who will not be bound by the decree and who may proceed independently if they wish. It would be unreasonable, useless, and impractical in some cases to join those whose rights are not affected by the relief sought. On the other hand, the court indicated that there was no reason why those beyond the jurisdiction of the court (who, by virtue of riparian or other right, are entitled to use water supplied by the water improvement district, and are making use of the water through their agents or employees) could not and should not be joined and their right to use the water determined in rem. Although an injunction could not be granted against them unless jurisdiction in some manner were to be obtained in personam, yet it could be granted against the district as the distributing agency of the water.331 The Idaho and Texas cases discussed immediately above were ordinary civil actions. One of the purposes of the State legislatures in enacting statutory adjudication procedures often appears to have been to provide a more comprehensive proceeding for the determination of relative rights on a stream system than might have been accomplished in an ordinary civil action.332 To the extent that such statutory adjudication proceedings are substantially more comprehensive than an ordinary civil action, different considerations with respect to "parties" may apply. If, for example, the intended result of such a proceeding is to bring in and adjudicate all claimants and water users, it presupposes that every claimant and water user is a necessary party, for if some are not brought in, the ultimate purpose is not achieved. However, there are variations throughout the Western States in the extent to which all or fewer water rights claimants within the encompassed area are brought into the proceeding and are bound by the final determination.333 Section 666(a) of title 43 of the United States Code provides: Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to 331 Wilson v. Reeves County W. I. Dist. No. 1, 256 S.W. 346, 348 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923). For some other Texas State and Federal decisions concerning parties and class actions, see Watkins Land Co. v. Clements, 98 Tex. 578, 584, 86 S.W. 733 (1905); Hidalgo County W. I. Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County W. C. & I. Dist. No. 5, 253 S.W. (2d) 294, 299-300 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952, error refused n.r.e.); Board of Water Engineers v. Briscoe, 35 S.W. (2d) 804, 806 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930, error dismissed); Hudspeth County Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Robbins, 213 Fed. (2d) 425, 432 (5th Cir. 1954), certiorari denied, 348 U.S. 833 (1954); Martinez v. Maverick County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 219 Fed. (2d) 666,672-673 (5th Cir. 1955). 312 This is suggested by a number of statements in reported Western court decisions. See "Special Statutory Adjudication Procedures-Purpose of Statutory Procedures," supra. 333In this regard, see "Judgments and Decrees-Binding Effect: Conclusiveness," infra. |