Laserfiche WebLink
<br />was rejected. Also rejected was Nebraska's claim that <br />the North Platte decree apportioned the Laramie flows <br />that historically reached the North Platte. Accordingly, <br />the Court found that Nebraska must come forward <br />. with evidence sufficient to establish that a project on <br />the Laramie would pose a threat of injury serious <br />enough to warrant a modnication of the existing <br />decree, <br /> <br />Wyoming's motion for summary judgement on <br />Nebraska's chalienge to a proposed new storage <br />reservoir on Deer Creek tributary was denied. The <br />Court found that it did not need to adopt a definitive <br />interpretation of a provision in the decree exempting <br />further review of Wyoming's diversion of North Platte <br />water for ordinary and usual municipal use, because <br />the Deer Creek project may not qualify as such a use, <br />Further, proof that such a project would cause <br />substantial injury in Nebraska, which is necessary <br />because the decree does not currently restrict <br />Wyoming's use of Deer Creek, may depend on <br />Wyoming's operation of such a project. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court found that most of Wyoming's, <br />Nebraska's, and Colorado's requested rulings with <br />respect to the 'below Tri-State' issues were too <br />theoretical and insufficiently developed to be deatt with <br />in summary fashion. Nebraska, however, was granted <br />partial summary judgement on its request for a <br />determination that the 1945 decree did not impose <br />absolute ceilings on water diversions through certain <br />canals. <br /> <br />The Court noted that an important facet of its <br />opinion was the principle that when proceedings <br />involve an application for enforcement of rights under <br />a Supreme Court decree, plaintiffs need not show <br />injury to be successful. However, where plaintiffs seek <br />modnication of a decree to cover questions not <br />decided in the original proceedings, a showing of <br />substantial injury must be made to warrant relief. <br /> <br />Reactions to the ruling in this complicated case <br />have been mixed. All parties have identified benefits <br />that will flow from the court's decision. Indeed, the <br />existence of the ruling itsen, as opposed to further <br />delay and uncertainty with respect to both procedural <br />and substantive matters, is seen as an important and <br />significant milestone. Proceedings in the case will <br />continue. <br /> <br />UTlGATlON/WATER RIGHTS <br /> <br />Snake River System/General Adjudication . <br /> <br />The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed an Idaho <br />Supreme Court decision and held that the McCarran <br />Amendment's waiver of sovereign immunity is not <br />sufficient to subject the United States to the payment <br />of filing fees as envisioned under the Idaho general <br />stream adjudication statute, United States v. Idaho, <br />No. 92-190 (May 3, 1993). The case was remanded <br />for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. <br /> <br />The Idaho Supreme Court held that the McCarran <br />amendment expressed Congress' intent to subject the <br />United States to all state court processes in general <br />adjudication proceedings, including the payment of <br />filing fees (WSW #936). On appeal, the United States <br />contended that an appropriate construction of the <br />McCarran amendment would require the United States <br />to be subject to state substantive water law in general <br />adjudications, but not state procedural law (including <br />filing fee payment). Idaho countered that. the <br />McCarran amendment's waiver of sovereign immunity <br />applies to all facets of general adjudication <br />proceedings, including the payment of filing fees. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court was unable to accept either . <br />party's contention. It found the United States' <br />argument to be 'weak' allowing 'the government to <br />argue for some special federal rule defeating <br />established state-law rules governing pleading, <br />discovery, and the admissibility of evidence at trial. <br />We do not believe that the Congress intended to <br />created such a legal no-man's land in enacting the <br />McCarran amendment.' Idaho's argument was <br />rejected, the Court said, on the basis that 'several of <br />our cases exemplifying the rule of strict construction of <br />a waiver of sovereign immunity...reject efforts to <br />assess monetary liability against the United States for <br />what are normal incidents of litigation between private <br />parties.' The Court found no such specnic waiver in <br />the McCarran amendment. It concluded, 'While we <br />therefore accept the proposition that the critical <br />language of the...McCarran Amendment submits the <br />United States generally to state adjective [procedural] <br />law, as well as to state substantive law of water rights, <br />we do not believe it subjects the United States to the <br />payment of the sort of fees that Idaho sought to exact <br />here.' <br /> <br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of . <br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, <br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah. Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma <br />