|
Iii
<br /> j i
<br /> ' j'
<br /> July 10, 1952 ,' July 10, 1952
<br /> STATE, JUSTICE, ETC. APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953 1097 ;'
<br /> it
<br /> TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
<br /> ND THE JUDICIARY 1 r 1,
<br /> f
<br /> DT, 1953 Sec. 208. [Joinder of United States as defendant in water rights suits.]— i,
<br /> the Departments of State, Justice, (a) Consent is hereby given to.join the United States as a defendant in any
<br /> ending June 30, 1953, and for other suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or
<br /> 549). other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights,where it appears that
<br /> the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring.water rights
<br /> i b appropriation under State aw, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and
<br /> ' OF STATE t
<br /> the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a
<br /> party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead
<br /> * , * hat the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable 1.
<br /> thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments,
<br /> WATER COMMISSION, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review -a
<br /> MEXICO thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual
<br /> under like circumstances: Provided,That no judgment for costs shall be entered
<br /> * *
<br /> s against the United States in any such suit. .
<br /> (b) Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the
<br /> Attorney General or his designated representative.
<br /> or detailed plan preparation and (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of
<br /> 'r,That the Anzalrepa Diversion ,,the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United
<br /> r,T supply zal u in the United "States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream.
<br /> :_ (d) None of the funds appropriated by this title may be used in the prepara-
<br /> nade with the prospective water ion or prosecution of the suit in the United States District Court for the 1
<br /> portions of the costs of said dam:,:4-_, Southern District of California, Southern Division, by the United States of
<br /> the Secretary of State. (66 Stat merica against Fallbrook Public Utility District, a public service corporation
<br /> of the State of California, and others. (66 Stat. 560;43 U.S.C. §666)
<br /> ,
<br /> Es 'EXPLANATORY NOTES "1
<br /> Coat-rnational Boundary and Water Co I.
<br /> L.The International Boundary Co a Codification. Subsection (d) is not in- Editor's Note, Annotations. Annotations -0
<br /> ' was created originally pursuant b (luded in 43 U.S.C.§666. of opinions are included only to the extent - t
<br /> invention with Mexico of March 7 -'opular Name. Section 208 is popularly deemed relevant to activities of the Bureau 1
<br /> (effective December 24, 1890), I'o'vn as the McCarran Amendment,after of Reclamation under this statute.
<br /> 512. It was reconstituted the Int 6' C'+nator Pat McCarran.
<br /> ii Boundary and Water Commissi'
<br /> States and Mexico, by the Tre y NOTES OF OPINIONS
<br /> lexico which was signed at Wash' f -
<br /> February 3, 1944. The 1944 Treat Ations not consented to 2 rights. Turner v. Kings River Conservation
<br /> s herein in chronological order. •ose 1 Dist., 360 F. 2d 184, 197 (9th Cir. 1966). I
<br /> or's Note, Annotations. Annotatx 4f A=..oval 3
<br /> lions are not included because 2. Actions not consented to
<br /> on does not deal primarily wit c A,.. urpose A suit by certain individuals claiming
<br /> of the Bureau of Reclamation.' •he adoption of the McCarran amend- water rights in the San Joaquin River asking
<br /> -'t consenting to the joinder of the United an injunction against the United States to
<br /> -`rtes as a defendant in an equitable action refrain from interfering with such rights by
<br /> " �� the operation of Friant Dam, is not a case j
<br /> o r the adjudication of rights to the use involving a general adjudication of "all of
<br /> e "Department of State A , ater of a river system or other source," I
<br /> ,:- ' o_ieates that Congress did not intend to tl'e rights of various owners on a given
<br /> g stream" (S. Rept. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st
<br /> 4 qse government irrigation projects to Sess. 9 (1951)) within the meaning of the ,
<br /> * * r.' R,:possibility of interruption by individual McCarran amendment, but rather is a pH- 1
<br /> `r ate injunction suits to determine water vate suit to determine water rights solely
<br /> F
<br /> I
<br /> 1
<br />
|