WSP07099

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Section "D" General Federal Issues/Policies - Indian Water Rights
• State: CO
• Date: 7/24/1983
• Author: Hank Meshorer
• Title: Federal Reserved Water Rights Litigation, 28th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

f}. '7-s;:

.

.

FEDERAL RESERVED HATER RIGHTS LITIGATION

by Hank Meshorer

I. INTRODUCTION

.c.

"

c

"

',;~ .'j4

.:1 II.

\ ';-
'cu'J
~
;i
I
.1

:r
.
3

,
~
j

--t

I,

oj"

-J..

A. Brief historical overview of the development of the
doctrine of federal reserved water right~.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908);
Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, 349 U.S.
435, 446-448 (1955); Arizona v. CRlifornia,
373 U.S. 546, 595-601 (1963); United States v.
District Court in and for Ea~le County, 401
U.S. 520, 522-523, 524, 526 (19/1); Colorado
River Conservation District v. United States,
424 U.S. 800, 809-~13 (1976); Cappaert v.
United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976);
United States v. New tlexico. 438 U.S. 696,
698-702 (1978); Desert Land Act of 1877, 43
U.S.C. ~321; McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C.
~666.

B. Brie[ definition of federal reserved rights.

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908);
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963);
Ca~paert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976);
UnHed States v. Ne.w !-lexico, 438 U.S. 696 (978);
United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court,
No. 79 SA 99 and 100.

OUTSTANDING LITIGATIOll QUESTIONS

A. Service of Process and Joinder of the United States
in a general adjudication in a state forum can prove
cumbersome and expensive.

Denver v. United States, Colorado Supreme Court,
No. 79 SA 344.

In

1.

Local rules requ~r~ng personal service notice
by publication Day prove unrealistic in a general
stream adjudication involving the United States.

24-1

-