Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138430
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:39:39+00:00

Document:
48 braska v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Interior was not a necessary party, saying:193 The bill alleges, and we know as a matter of law, that the Secretary and his agents, acting by authority of the Reclamation Act and supplementary legislation, must obtain permits and priorities for the use of water from the State of Wyoming in the same manner as a private appropriator or an irrigation district formed under the state law. His rights can rise no higher than those of Wyoming, and an adjudication of the defendant's rights will necessarily bind him. Wyoming will stand in judg- ment for him as for any other appropriator in that state. Later, the United States became a party in the litigation, and in the Court's 1945 opinion in Nebraska v. Wyoming, Section 8 was characterized as "a direction by Congress to the Secretary of the Interior" to proceed in conformity with state laws in the appropriation of water for irrigation purposes.19* The conse- quences thus vary with the law of the state involved. In New Mexico, for example, a special state statute applies in the case of federal reclamation projects. Reservation of certain un- appropriated waters of the state may be effected by a notifica- tion from the proper federal officer to the State Engineer that the United States intends to make use of those waters.195 One court has held that Section 8 does not constitute a waiver of immunity of the United States from suit.198 However, apart from Section 8, the Supreme Court of the United States was 198 295 U. S. 40, 43 (1985). See also Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 92-93 (1907) ; California Oregon Potoer Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 164 (1935) ; Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington, 302 U. S. 186,198-199 (1937); United States v. West Side Irrigating Co., 230 Fed. 284, 290 (D. C. Wash. 1916); United States v. HumboMt Lovelock Irr. Light & Power Co., 97 F. 2d 38, 42 (O. A. 9,1938), cert, den., 305 U. S. 630 (1938). And compare First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Federal Power Cofnmission, 328 U. S. 152,164,175-177 (1946). W325 U. S. 589, 614 (1945). M6N. Mex. Stat. Ann. (1941) Vol. 5, §77-531. Cf. Okla. Stat. Ann. (perm, ed.) Title 82, § 91. ** North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 12 F. 2d 311, 313-314 (D. C. Idaho 1926).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §77
 § 91
 v.