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

.

.

of the United
1vHion t'o.

0783

In re A lication for
States 0 Amer1ca,
No. \oJ-1l20.

2. Service upon only one federal a~ency may compel
all other federal a~encies to respond to avoid
charges of splitting the cause of action or
res judicata as to those federal claims withheld
from the general adjudication.

United States v. Denver, Supreme Court,
Colorado, No. 79 SA 99 and 100.

B. Litigation Costs

1. Payment of filing fees and the like to the state
court system by the United States are general:y
non-refundable.

Denver v. United States, Colorado Suprenp
Court, N0. 79 SA 344; United States v.
Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, No. 79 SA
99 and 100; In re A~plication for Water
Ri~hts of the Unite States of America,
Co orado \later Division No.7, Ho. \1-1180.
McCarran Amendment, 43 V.S.C. ~666.

2. Allocation of costs for Rule 53 Masters to the
United States May be barred by the McCarren
Amend~ent, 43 U.S.C. ~666; and the doctrine of
sovereign immunity. or payable only out of state
funds.

United States v. Denver, Colorado Supre~e
Court Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100; Arizona v.
California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

C. Selection of Master can prove difficult, culminatinf
with an ill-suited compromise choice.

1. Pernit states may be required as a matter of
due process to appoint a Master or an indcpen-
dent judicial officer to hear the cp.se. Wyoming
Adjudication.

D. DiscovE'ry

1. Effective discovery can be utilized to force a
de facto quantification of most federal reserved
rights.

Wyor.1ing Adiudication. Denver v. United
States, Co ora do Supreme Court, No. 79 SA 344.
Cf. United States v. Denver, Colorado Suprenc
Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100.

24-2

.~_".l

..