Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. Jurisdiction in Adjudication <br /> <br />Prior to the 1952 passage of the McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. 1970), <br /> <br />all reserved water rights claims were adjudicated in federal courts (Ranquist, <br /> <br />1975). The McCarran Amendment, which partially waived federal sovereign <br /> <br />immunity in water rights suits, stated in part: <br /> <br />Consent is hereby given to join the United States as a <br />defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the <br />use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for <br />the administration of such rights, where it appears that the <br />United States is the owner of or is in the process of <br />acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by <br />purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is <br />a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a <br />party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived <br />any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or <br />that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of <br />its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, <br />orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may <br />obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same <br />extent as a private individual under like circumstances: <br />Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against <br />the United States in any such suit. <br /> <br />In U.S. v. Colorado District Court in and for Eal(le County (401 U.S. 520) <br /> <br /> <br />and la ter in Colorado River Conservation District v. U.S. (424 U.S. 800), the <br /> <br />U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the McCarran Amendment. In the former case <br /> <br />the Court held that federal reserved water rights could be subjected to <br /> <br />adjudication in state courts. In the latter case, also known as the Akin case, <br /> <br />the same ruling was made with respect to Indian reserved water rights. <br /> <br />However, both rulings applied to instances where states were adjudicating water <br /> <br />rights in an entire watershed, or major portion thereof (Ranquist, 1975) (General <br /> <br />Accounting Office, 1978). <br /> <br />A continuing controversy followed attempts to adjudicate Indian water <br /> <br />-12- <br />