WSPC02585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Indian Water~1997: Trends and Directions in Federal Water Policy I I I I the issue. In Colorado, they did not adjudicate tributaries as part of the general stream adjudication, whereas in Idaho they are adjudicating all the tributaries as well as the main stem of the river because in their view that's the river system. . My next point regarding general stream adjudications in state courts is this: the United States Supreme Court in the 1993 case United States v. Idaho17 held that the United States is not required to pay state filing fees in general stream adjudications, because the McCarran Amendment expressly provides that "no judgment for costs should be entered against the United States." Although we're not sure what "costs" and fees are exactly, the Court decided that it was going to be very careful in determining when the United States waived its sovereign immunity for purposes of paying money under general stream adjudications. So I think the courts are going to carefully guard the United States' waiver, and not hold the United States liable to pay for portions of these state court general stream adjudications once they are started. I I I Interestingly, along those lines, although the state procedural laws apply in state general stream adjudications, remember that the state courts are quantifYing the federal rights under federal law. There's a procedure for making all this happen, and that is under state law. This is okay under the McCarran Amendment. But any procedure in which the states purport to be part of a McCarran Amendment, or to be getting ready for a McCarran Amendment case, is going to receive strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. I I I I For example, in Uni'ted States v. Oregon, there was a preliminary registration statement required to be filed, to give the state agencies some idea of the scope of what was going to happen ifit started the general stream adjudication. So the agencies were getting ready for a general stream adjudication but not really doing one yet. And the courts said, "That's not good. The United States' sovereign immunity waiver does not apply there." It has to be an adjudication or an integral part of an adjudication. A state can't order the United States to file registration statements unless there's a general stream adjudication started, and filing is part of the adjudicatory process. 17 508 U.S. 1 (1993). I I I I I I I Let me close by making a few comments about the history of Indian tribes in these general stream adjudications. I want to start by pointing out one big advantage and then note the many disadvantages. The big advantage, it seems to me, is that general stream adjudications-particularly where there's a comprehensive statutory scheme to make the general stream adjudication go forward-are a known quantity. It's something with which we can work. 22