Opinion ID: 2508124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The McCarran Amendment Comprehensively Waives Sovereign Immunity for State Court Determination of All Factual and Legal Issues Regarding Quantification and Administration of the Black Canyon Federal Reserved Water Right

Text: Congress adopted the McCarran Amendment to confer on state courts the authority to adjudicate all factual and legal issues pertaining to the existence, nature, scope, and administration of federal reserved water rights of United States agencies and Native American Tribes. The comprehensive nature of this authority was delineated by the United States Supreme Court in the Colorado trilogy: Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) ( Colorado River ); United States v. District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, 401 U.S. 527, 91 S.Ct. 1003, 28 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) ( Division No. 5 ); United States v. District Court in and for Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520, 91 S.Ct. 998, 28 L.Ed.2d 278 (1971) ( Eagle County ). Those cases arose out of repeated attempts by the United States Justice Department to have issues of federal law involving the adjudication and administration of reserved rights claims determined in the federal courts. Colorado prevailed in its view that the overarching congressional policy, upon proper joinder of the United States, was that all issues of law and procedure in such cases would be determined by the state courts, subject to review by the United States Supreme Court. We have made it clear that by enacting the McCarran Amendment, Congress recognized that the western states have a legitimate interest in and responsibility for the allocation of water resources within their borders, including the determination and adjudication of the water rights claimed by the United States. United States v. City and County of Denver, 656 P.2d 1, 9 (Colo.1982) ( City and Countyof Denver I ). These issues include the volume and scope of particular reserved rights claims: [a]ll such questions, including the volume and scope of particular reserved rights, are federal questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed [by the United States Supreme Court] after final judgment by the Colorado court. Eagle County, 401 U.S. at 526, 91 S.Ct. 998. Through the McCarran Amendment, Congress intended to promote certainty in water allocation by subjecting undeclared and unquantified federal water rights to state adjudication. United States v. Bell, 724 P.2d 631, 642 (Colo.1986). Issues involving the interaction of state water rights with federal water rights are within the state court's authority to determine. Division No. 5, 401 U.S. at 529-30, 91 S.Ct. 1003 (holding that, if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the United States, the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review). In Bell, as here, we had before us a C.R.C.P. 15 motion by the United States to amend its previously submitted claims. We upheld the water court's denial of the motion, despite the contention of the United States that its substantive rights would be adversely affected by the procedural ruling: The next question is whether the water court properly applied C.R.C.P. 15 in allowing the amendment. C.R.C.P. 15(a) provides that after a responsive pleading is filed, pleadings may be amended by a party only by consent of the adverse party or by leave of court but that such leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. The decision to grant an amendment is within the trial court's discretion. We have interpreted C.R.C.P. 15(a) liberally in allowing amendments. Bell, 724 P.2d at 637 (internal citations omitted). We relied on the Senate Report to the McCarran Amendment in so holding: `it is essential that each and every owner along a given water course, including the United States, must be amenable to the law of the state, if there is to be a proper administration of the water law as it has developed over the years.' Id. at 643 ( quoting S. Rep. 755 at 6). In Bell, we upheld the water court's refusal to allow the United States to amend its late-noticed claim under C.R.C.P. 15, because the McCarran Amendment's effect was to place federal reserved rights within the state adjudication system and certainty provided by adjudication of the United States' reserved rights through joining the United States in state court water adjudications would be destroyed. 724 P.2d at 645. Accordingly, in setting the priority date, quantifying the claim, and administering the right, federal substantive law and state procedural law apply. Id. at 643. In light of the clear and repeated congressional intent to allow the state court to proceed with resolving all issues involved with setting the priority, quantifying the claims, and administering the water rights-as construed by our decisions and those of the United States Supreme Court-I would hold that the water court abused its discretion by staying consideration of both the motion to amend and the administration agreement.