Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />If the Federal District Court has jurisdiction of a suit or aotion I <br /> <br /> <br />brought by the United States, it would seem to fellow tl:at the United States <br /> <br /> <br />should not be concerned about the fact that adjudication proceedings in <br /> <br />state GOurts have been and may herca1't or be carried through before the <br /> <br /> <br />United states invokec the jurisdiction of the Federal court. The State <br /> <br /> <br />courts obviously C!UlIlot obtain any jur13diction OVOl' the United States <br /> <br /> <br />unle.s the latter lIees fit to submit thereto. In the absence of such oub- <br /> <br />mission, noth1JJg that takes place in the State oourts can affect its rights. \ <br /> <br /> <br />However, no attempt is hsre made to brief the question lIhether juris- <br /> <br /> <br />diction of State courto in wator adjudications is exclusive. In pasclng, <br /> <br /> <br />the opinion is ventured that the only banis for such oontention is Seo. 8 <br /> <br /> <br />of the Reolamation Act. <br /> <br />Boma question has been raised from twe to time as to whether or not <br /> <br /> <br />in a situation cuch as we havs here, in \1fh1ch the united Statss owns no <br /> <br /> <br />lands to be irrigated, it is the proper party to a prooeeding to sscure the <br /> <br /> <br />adjudication of the water rights. This mell10randum brief 1a dsvoted to that <br /> <br />question. <br /> <br />It will be recalled that in tho Humboldt Lovelock case, the 9th <br /> <br /> <br />Circuit Court of Appealn held that the united States was entitled to bring <br /> <br /> <br />llnd maintain a ouit for injuncticn against interference with the water rights <br /> <br /> <br />held for the benefit of owners of lllnd in Pershing County water Conservation <br /> <br /> <br />District in Nevada. It 18 stated in the Humboldt Lovelook case that "What_ <br /> <br /> <br />ever rights appollant may have, and the extent thereot IIIUlIt be dete1'll1ned <br /> <br />b,. the law of Nevada." <br /> <br /> <br />lie need not stop to inquire 1Ihother suoh a statemont would be truo <br /> <br /> <br />as to the rights here sinoe, as lr1l1 appenr, the United Statee, under the <br /> <br /> <br />law of COlorado, is the propsI' party to eeoure adjudication of the rightn <br /> <br /> <br />in queetion. <br /> <br />The cases in Colorndo hold that the users of YlUter under a ditoh are <br /> <br /> <br />the O\Yllers of the water rights. The rights of wsers under a so-called carrier <br /> <br /> <br />ditoh, operated for the profit of Share.'lolders, are whoJ.ly dependent upon the <br /> <br />eRlltdlffiif1r1l"~!r~~~lr$g!e'wa~oq.eU~intl!r~S!"p!K'IIeilt~t'! '"!?;~e <br />other farmer then becomes entitled to receive ....ter, upon II&ld.ng the neces- <br />sary payment, and the letter then becomes the owner of the water right, and <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />2555 <br /> <br />