Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />- <br /> <br /> <br />/O?!f <br /> <br />from YYOr1?1 rt I{ en /"0 ;;y, /'(. <br /> <br />n elly <br />reJ,.r~/'7"J <br /> <br />,,;J <br /> <br />'I '! <br /> <br />lr ~'~v-~"\f~ ( I " <br /> <br />~ADJUDICATIOII IN Fi.illiRAI, DISTRICT comh OF COLORADO <br />A})Y / ~VIATffi PRIORITY RIGHTS III CONllECTlOIl WITH COUlRADO- <br /><. "\' BIG TliOMPSOIl PROJJjI;T. <br /> <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />This memornndum io devoted to the propooition that the United <br /> <br /> <br />States is the prop"r party, in its own name, to secure an adjudication <br /> <br /> <br />of all water priority rights in conncotion with the Colorado-Big <br /> <br /> <br />Thompson Project. <br /> <br /> <br />we may here assume, at least for the sake of ar[UJllC1lt, that by <br /> <br />Seo. 8 of the Reclamation Act, the Seoretary of the Interior i3 requirod <br /> <br /> <br />to comply generally with the requirements of the State Law of Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />as to the appropriation, use and distribution of water. Howover, we <br /> <br />believe it is tair to say that, il the Congress hM. intended to requiro <br /> <br /> <br />the United states to submit the determination of its rights, whIltever <br /> <br /> <br />they I1lIlY be under the State lall', to a State court, the Act in question <br /> <br /> <br />w"uld have so stated. The provieion of the Judioial Code giving to the <br /> <br /> <br />Fedel>al District Courts or1ginlll jurisdiction "Of all ouito of a civil <br /> <br /> <br />nature, at COl1r.1on lall or in equity, brought by the United States + + + " <br /> <br /> <br />(/I 41, Title 28, U.S.C.A.) hn,l lons bee."1 in ""-.1atence when the Reclamation <br /> <br /> <br />Act W8.3 passed. <br /> <br />Thoro i. very little difference in substance betweeil a general ad- <br /> <br />judication proceeding and a suit in equity 1lh1ch so frequontly io brought <br /> <br /> <br />b:r one aeeking te prevent intorference nth olawed ....tor l"ighte, 1Ih1Cb. <br /> <br /> <br />""'-:r or mo.y not theretofore hnve be<m adjudicated. In both cas os thero ia <br /> <br /> <br />made a deterr.dnation of the right of one or more pnrties againot one or <br /> <br /> <br />more othor partiea. The principal dilforence i. that in tee general adjud- <br /> <br /> <br />ication prooeeding there are many more parties. Ordinary equity Mses for <br /> <br />the protection of water rights frequently have been brought by the United <br /> <br /> <br />Stat os in }'ederal courts. Ide v. United States, 263 U.S. 407/ United <br /> <br /> <br />states v. Bennett, 207 F. 524 (C.C.A. 9th)/ United States v. Union Cap <br /> <br /> <br />Irripption Co., 209 P. 274, 276 (B.D. !~sh.)/ West Side Irrigating Co. v. <br /> <br /> <br />United States, 246 F. 212, 217/ Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United Stat os, 2G9 <br /> <br /> <br />F. 80 (C.C.A. 8th)/ United states v. RaCa, 2,6 F. (C.C.A. 8th), 41. <br /> <br />-1- <br /> <br />2557 <br /> <br />