Opinion ID: 454898
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The McCarran Amendment

Text: 49 The federal defendants also argue that the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 666, precludes review of water rights suits against the United States except for suits involving claims specified in the statute. The Amendment, which provides review in limited circumstances, states in relevant part: 50 (a) Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. 51 43 U.S.C. Sec. 666 (1982). 52 1. The case does not meet the review requirements for review under the McCarran Amendment. 53 The parties agree that the instant suit does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) of the McCarran Amendment because the suit does not involve a general stream adjudication. See Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. at 618, 83 S.Ct. at 1005. But defendant-appellee State of California argues that the instant suit fits within subsection (2) and is reviewable as a suit for the administration of [water] rights. We are unable to accept the State's argument. 54 South Delta, in its complaint, alleges that the operation of the CVP diminishes the quality and quantity of South Delta's water and seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief. 15 But there has been no judicial determination whether South Delta has rights to the water it asserts the CVP is affecting. Logically, a court cannot adjudicate the administration of water rights until it determines what those rights are. If plaintiffs' claim were reviewable merely because it relates to the administration of water rights, without plaintiffs first proving the validity of that claim, then the requirement of a general stream adjudication contained in subsection (1) would be superfluous; any party could gain review of agency action by arguing that it is merely seeking a subsection (2) administration, not a subsection (1) determination, of water rights. 55 We agree with the conclusion of United States District Judge Roger D. Foley expressed in United States v. Hennen, 300 F.Supp. 256 (D.Nev.1968), that Congress intended a waiver of immunity under subsection (2) only after a general stream determination under subsection (1) has been made: 56 To administer a decree is to execute it, to enforce its provisions, to resolve conflicts as to its meaning, to construe and to interpret its language. Once there has been such an adjudication and a decree entered, then one or more persons who hold adjudicated water rights can, within the framework of Sec. 666(a)(2), commence among others such actions as described above, subjecting the United States, in a proper case, to the judgments, orders and decrees of the court having jurisdiction. 57 Id. at 263. 58 Because there has been no prior adjudication of relative general stream water rights in this case, there can be no suit for the administration of such rights within the meaning of the McCarran Amendment. 43 U.S.C. Sec. 666(a)(2). Therefore, South Delta's suit fails to meet the requirements for review under the McCarran Amendment. 59 2. Failure to meet the requirements for review under the McCarran Amendment does not preclude review under section 1331. 60 We next must decide whether the district court has jurisdiction over South Delta's claim under the more general grant of jurisdiction in section 1331. Federal defendants assert that the McCarran Amendment is the exclusive avenue of review for water rights disputes involving the United States and that South Delta's failure to fit its suit within the Amendment's requirements precludes jurisdiction under section 1331. 61 The defendants draw an analogy between the McCarran Amendment and the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a (1982), and rely on a recent Supreme Court decision interpreting the Quiet Title Act, Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of University and School Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983), to support their assertion. 62 In Block, the Court held that the legislative history and the  'balance, completeness, and structural integrity'  of the Quiet Title Act indicated Congress's intent that the Act provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States' title to real property. Id. at 285, 103 S.Ct. at 1818 (quoting Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1967, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)). The Court observed that if adverse claimants were permitted to pursue more general remedies, they would circumvent the special features that Congress included in the Quiet Title Act after extensive negotiation and careful planning: an Indian lands exception, an option given the United States to pay damages, and a twelve year statute of limitations. 16 Id. Therefore, the Court remanded for a determination of the date on which the plaintiffs' claim accrued, holding that if plaintiffs filed their suit after the twelve year statute of limitations, the district court had no jurisdiction to hear it. Id. at 292-93, 103 S.Ct. at 1822-23. 63 The federal defendants in the instant case argue that the requirement of a general stream adjudication in the McCarran Amendment, like the twelve year statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act, is a condition that must be met to bring a water rights dispute case against the United States: if that requirement is not met, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. 64 This argument fails for two reasons. 65 First, the analogy between the McCarran Amendment and the Quiet Title Act is inapposite. The Quiet Title Act, containing seven sections with special provisions and limitations, is clearly an attempt to address and resolve the entire area of land title disputes involving the federal government. See 28 U.S.C. 2409a(a)-(g). In contrast, the McCarran Amendment, three sections long, is an attempt to address a particular type of water rights dispute, not the entire field of water law litigation involving the federal government. 17 In enacting the McCarran Amendment, Congress recognized the importance of state court water right proceedings to adjudicate all conflicting claims to the use of water from a river system, and the inequity of permitting the United States to claim immunity from these comprehensive state court adjudications. Senator McCarran justified the Amendment as follows: 66 Since it is clear that the States have the control of the water within their boundaries, 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. 67 S.Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1951). 68 The McCarran Amendment was thus a response to particular state court water rights suits, i.e., general stream of adjudications, not an attempt to resolve the whole field of water rights litigation. The Amendment does not contain the detailed exceptions and qualifications that the Quiet Title Act contains. Nor does the Amendment have the balance, completeness, and structural integrity of the Quiet Title Act. See Block, 461 U.S. at 285, 103 S.Ct. at 1818. Therefore, unlike the Quiet Title Act, the McCarran Amendment does not preclude district court jurisdiction under section 1331. 69 Second, the Supreme Court and this court have held that the McCarran Amendment does not preclude review under other general jurisdiction statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1345 & 1362 (1982). 70 In Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), the Government instituted suit in the district court seeking a declaration of the Government's water rights in certain rivers in Colorado. The Government invoked the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1345, which grants the district courts original jurisdiction of all suits commenced by the United States [e]xcept as otherwise provided by Act of Congress. 18 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine whether the McCarran Amendment is such an Act of Congress excepting jurisdiction under Sec. 1345. 424 U.S. at 807, 96 S.Ct. at 1241. After examining the McCarran Amendment's language and legislative history, the Court concluded that the McCarran Amendment in no way diminished federal-district-court jurisdiction under Sec. 1345 and that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear this case. Id. at 809, 96 S.Ct. at 1242. In a footnote, the Court noted that [t]he District Court also would have had jurisdiction of this suit under the general federal-question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. For the same reasons, the McCarran Amendment did not affect jurisdiction under Sec. 1331 either. Id. at 809 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. at 1242 n. 15. 19 71 The Court reaffirmed its conclusion that the McCarran Amendment does not diminish federal court jurisdiction in Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, 463 U.S. 545, 103 S.Ct. 3201, 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983). In San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Court held that the McCarran Amendment did not limit the jurisdictional reach of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1362, which grants the district courts original jurisdiction of civil actions brought by Indian tribes. 20 Id. at 559-60 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. at 3209-10 n. 10. 72 And we have recently followed Colorado River and San Carlos Apache Tribe in holding that the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1345 over the Government's suit for a declaration of water rights within a former Indian Reservation. United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3536, 82 L.Ed.2d 841 (1984). 73 Although no court has yet resolved the precise issue whether the McCarran Amendment precludes district court jurisdiction under section 1331, the Supreme Court's holdings in Colorado River and San Carlos Apache Tribe and its remarks concerning the Amendment's effect on section 1331 in Colorado River solidly support the district court's jurisdiction over South Delta's suit under section 1331.CONCLUSION 74 For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the United States waived sovereign immunity and that the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction in the instant case. We therefore AFFIRM the district court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss.