|
x ,
<br /> cI
<br /> i July 10, 19.? July 10, 1952
<br /> i I;li 109.8 STATE, JUSTICE, ETC. APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953
<br /> 4 ,,
<br /> between the claimants and the United States granted by the McCarran Amendment an
<br /> and the local Bureau of Reclamation offi- suit was therefore barred by the sovereign,-•--
<br /> cials. Consequently, the consent of the immunity of the United States.Nevada was ,
<br /> I United States to the suit has not been given not seeking, either for herself or for otheri",1, DRY_FA
<br /> 1 under the McCarran amendment, and the the jurisdictional establishment of any par,
<br /> 14 suit must be dismissed as to the United titular use of usufructuary right, as;-60/1.1' 'Joint resolution to change the name of tl
<br /> States.Dugan v.Rank,372 U.S. 609, 617— templated by the McCarran Amendmeri J
<br /> +� 19 (1963) Rather she sought a declaration of h project to Dry Falls Dam. (Act of
<br /> } Section X208 of the Act of July 10, 1952, sovereign proprietary right to the corpua
<br /> 1 i f I consenting to the joinder of the United control of waters in general.State of Nevi a [Designation of Dry Falls Dam.]-
<br /> Ijr States in a suit "for the adjudication of v. United States, 279 F. 2d 699 (9th'Cir, bia Basin project shall hereafter be
<br /> , rights to the use of water of a river system 1960) pe ulation document, or record of t
<br /> ' ;: or other source", does not apply to an g
<br /> s„ 3. Removal designated or referred to under the r.
<br /> action for a declaration of rights in certain ,
<br /> 1,I x drainage waters from the Rio Grande rec- The McGarran Amendment simry
<br /> lamation project and for an injunction re- waived the immunity of the United States
<br /> refer to such dam under and by the no
<br /> 1 if
<br /> straining Bureau of Reclamation officials in the class of actions specified,and dido EXPLANA
<br /> from interfering with such rights.Miller v. purport to be a grant of jurisdiction to any ti;,'F >_'
<br /> Jennings, 243 F. 2d 157 (5th Cir. 1957), particular court or courts, state or federalt ' ' Not Codified.This Act is not codified it
<br /> cert. denied, 355 U.S. 827 (1957). An action brought by.the State Engireeraifi -
<br /> ' a Utah district court for the general deter the U.S.Code.
<br /> Nevada s suit seeking a declaration that g g Nt ; e, Legislative History. S.J. Res. 74, Public•
<br /> I+ urination of certain water ri hts"under state .-
<br /> the United States may not make use of," law will not.be removed to the.Federal dis3 k
<br /> underground waters developed by wells lo- trict court where there is no showing 2h,t
<br /> �: cated on the Hawthorne Naval Ammunition the Federal Court had original jurisdiction
<br /> 3'..A; Depot without applying therefore pursuant ' or that a question of Federal-law'was in- "''
<br /> j to State law was dismissed on the ground volved. In re Green River Drainage_4,re¢x t-,;t
<br /> that consent to the suit had not been 147.F.Supp. 127 (D. Utah 1956).
<br /> t :
<br /> * * * * * _ , .,fit 4.
<br /> Via' [Short title.]—This title may be cited as the "Department of Justice Appro ''`
<br /> pxiation Act,1953." (66 Stat.560)
<br /> j� [Short title.]—This Act may be cited as the "Departments of State, Justice;, ' .
<br /> <i Commerce, and The Judiciary Appropriation Act, 1953." (66 Stat. 574)
<br /> r,
<br /> EXPLANATORY NOTE -
<br /> ` Legislative History. H.R. 7289, Public H.R. Rept. No 2485 (2nd conference re-
<br /> Law 495 in the 82d Congress. H.R. Rept. port). 98 .Gong. Rec. V8109-10, 9444;4
<br /> No. 1665. S. Rept. No. 1807, at 10. H.R. (1952). See also S. Rept. No.. 755 (on,S,
<br /> �; Rept. No. 2454 (1st conference report). 18). ,..1
<br /> t
<br /> d . -. ..
<br /> .,
<br /> Z
<br /> ii
<br /> Ir
<br /> 11 '
<br /> i
<br /> 141,
<br /> jl I:
<br /> lit
<br /> L99
<br />
|