Laserfiche WebLink
<br />United States vs . <br />Northern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy Distric!, <br />et al. <br /> <br />District Court of <br />The United States <br />Distri:ct Court <br />of Colorado <br /> <br />Civil Action <br /> <br />No. 2782 <br /> <br />In 1949 the United States Attorney [General, at the request of the <br />Secretary of Interior, brought this action against a number of defendants, <br />including the City and County of Denver, the city of ColoradoSpr;i.ngs, and <br />several power corporations and irrigation districts. The purpose is to <br />determine the right to water for trans-mountain diversion from the Colorado <br />River system through the Colorado-Big Thompson Projeot. .. The water diverted <br />will be used fOr the development of power and irrigation in northeastern <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />The action is most comprehensive. ,jIt is alleged that if. the manf <br />claims to water rights on the Colorado Rivef in Colorado are valid, there <br />is not enough water remaining to serve the ~olorado-Big Thompson Project. <br />Thus the government now seeks to learn from! a court decision whether it has <br />a water supply for the project, which it commenced to build in 1937. The <br />complaint alleges that the water users fall! into distinct classes, and that <br />certain named defendants are truly represen~ative of each of these classes. <br /> <br />The complaint further alleges, as 'ground for jurisdiction being in <br />the Federal Court, that the rights involved! cover so many districts through- <br />out the state, that the United States coulq not get relief under the limited <br />scope of State statutory proceedings in the State courts; furthermore, that <br />adjudication would require a multiplicity qf separate state court actions. <br />It has been suggested that the action is so broad that the United States <br />could be suing the State of Colorado as the holder of all rights of its <br />citizens, rather than suing the separate w~.ter users. But the goverl1lllent, <br />by commencing this action, has ciroumvented the U.S. Supreme Court, which <br />would, if the United States sued Colorado, 'be the proper forum. In anf <br />event, the action is framed so as to avoidjthe state courts. <br /> <br />i <br />Certain of the defendants filed mQtions to dismiss, which were <br />heard in January of this year and denied b;y Judge Knous. This motion did <br />determine that the Federal Court has jurisdiction and that there is suffi- <br />cient authorization for the prosecution ofithe action by the Attorney <br />General. In May, motions to make more definite and certain, to strike <br />certain allegations of the complaint, and to separately state the causes <br />of action, were heard by the judge, and submitted upon briefs. The court <br />expressed himself as disturbed on the ques~ion whether or not there were <br />two oauses of action, one involving the de~laration on the contractual <br />obligations of the government arising out of Senate Dooument 80, and the <br />other on the proceedings for the adjudication of water rights. Several <br />questions important for all western states' appear in this proceeding: <br /> <br />1. Maya federal distriot court !take jurisdiction from the state <br />courts in a comprehensive su~t to determine water rights <br />created under state law? <br /> <br />2. Can such a case be determined by a representative or olass <br />action wherein all the hOldevs of water rights are not made <br />parties, but a few hand_picked defendants are required to <br />defend for all? <br /> <br />-14- <br />