Opinion ID: 2639108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [¶ 20] All parties agree that the certificates to store water in Buffalo Bill Reservoir were properly issued to the BOR, adjudicated by the state, and confirmed by the district court. This dispute arises because the Stutzmans are dissatisfied with the manner in which the stored water has been administered by the BOR. Specifically, they allege the BOR improperly released stored water during the winter for the state's in-stream flow permit which carries a much more recent priority date (1975) than the BOR's certificates (1904 and 1905) through which they claim implied secondary rights. The Stutzmans claim the release resulted in less stored water available in the irrigation season. We note the Stutzmans do not allege that they were denied any specific amount of water to which they were entitled under their patents and federal contracts. Rather, they raise the broader question of who owns or controls the water stored in a federal reclamation project. The answer to that complex question depends upon the context in which it is addressed and a variety of facts and circumstances. See, Reed D. Benson, Whose Water Is It? Private Rights and Public Authority Over Reclamation Project Water, 16 Va. Envtl. L.J. 363 (1997). As the Benson article described it, The entire package of rights in reclamation project water can be thought of, as with other property rights, as a bundle of sticks. In most cases, the sticks of the project water bundle are divided among at least four entities: the federal government, the state, the district, and the end user. Id. at 366. [¶ 21] The Stutzmans' assertion that they have the right to control a proportionate share of the stored water involves two of the sticks in the bundleone over which the district court had jurisdiction, and one over which it did not. To the extent the Stutzmans sought to enforce their rights against the United States pursuant to the federal patents and contracts, the district court lacked jurisdiction. The McCarran Amendment provides only limited consent to the exercise of state court jurisdiction over the United States. Specifically, the amendment waives the federal government's right to plead that state laws are inapplicable or that it is not subject to such laws by reason of its sovereignty, but only in cases involving the adjudication and administration of water rights where the United States is the owner of such rights and is a necessary party to the action. 43 U.S.C. § 666(a). The amendment does not give consent to claims against the federal government for enforcement of contracts to which the United States is a party. The district court properly found it had no jurisdiction over the Stutzmans' claims to the extent they sought to enforce such contracts. [¶ 22] However, the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Stutzmans had a legitimate claim of a state water right. Some of the facts relative to their status as individual irrigators in a federal reclamation project could be relevant to the determination of their state water right claims. If so, the district court certainly could consider those facts in the application of state law.