Legal Document

401 U.S. 520 91 Supreme Court Reporter 998 28 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 278 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF EAGLE and State of COLORADO, et al. Number 87. Argued March 2, 1971. Decided 24, Syllabus This case arises from attempted joinder pursuant to 43 Code KF62 § 666 as a defendant in proceeding state court for adjudication water rights covering Eagle River system Colorado. Under 666(a) '(c)onsent is given join any suit (1) use river or other source, (2) administration such rights, where it appears that (owns) process acquiring by appropriation under law, purchase, exchange, otherwise. * *' The contended applies only had acquired law does not constitute consent have adjudicated Government's reserved arising withdrawals land public domain. Its objection was overruled trial Colorado denied motion writ prohibition. Held: Section an allinclusive statutory provision subjects general proceedings all within particular State's jurisdiction regardless how they were acquired. Any conflict between States, if preserved proceeding, can ultimately be reviewed this Court. Pp. 522—526. Colo., 458 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 760, affirmed. Walter Kiechel, Jr., Washington, D.C., petitioner. Kenneth Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion 1 [amici curiae information intentionally omitted.] 2 tributary River; Water District 37 entity encompassing lands irrigated its tributaries. present started courts called supplemental Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 148—9—7 (1963). issued notice which, inter alia, asked owners claimants those streams 'to file statement claim appear regard owned claimed them.' served with 666.1 moved dismissed party, asserting States. 3 objections on prohibition took same view. 169 Colo. 555, 760. here petition certiorari, which we granted. 397 1005, 90 1238, 25 419. 4 We affirm decree. 5 It clear our cases often has based As said Arizona versus California, 373 546, 83 1468, 10 542, Federal Government authority both before after admitted into Union reserve waters benefit federally lands.' Id., at 597, 1496. include federal enclave. In California primarily concerned Indian reservations. 598—601, 1496—1498. reservation may implied amount will reflect nature 600—601, S.Ct., 1497 1498. Here White National Forest, withdrawn 1905, having been 1876. 6 points out are requires permanent fixing time adjudication, no future needs, required rights.2 Ibid. Since potentially war appropriative earnestly urged gave law. 7 'in source' would seem all-inclusive. deem almost frivolous suggestion tributaries 'river system' meaning Act. No could possibly encompass entire runs through touches many must read embracing one jurisdiction. With side, first clause 666(a)(1), literally, cover 'rights broad enough embrace 'reserved' waters. 8 main reliance Clause reads: 9 '* owner otherwise.' qualify separated 'or.' Yet even 'or' 'and', see difficulty Colorado's position. 666(a)(2) obviously includes previously presently being so But do restricted place 'the rights' refer described ones context 'such' mean; seen all-inclusive, terms least. Moreover, covers 'by purchase' exchange,' assume normally rights. also 'otherwise' doctrine ejusdem generis invoked maintain 'or otherwise' way dependent their creation existence law.3 reject conclusion deal all-inclusive statute concerning 666(a)(1) exceptions it, appropriate riparian 11 'general' Dugan Rank, 372 609, 618, 999, 15. unlike Dugan, private determine whether named priority over whole community claims involved Senator McCarran, Chairman Committee reporting bill, reply Magnuson:4 'S. 18 intended used purpose than allow joined wherein necessary adjudicate various stream. because unless parties owning stream defendant, subsequent decree little value.' 12 said, however, since who last district court.5 earliest date decreed later preceding adjudication.6 entered February 21, 1966, party prior district. accordingly says cannot barred previous decrees court, envisaged present. 13 think argument extremely technical; decline confine narrowly. absence problems going merits, there develops collision them States.7 All questions, including volume scope questions preserved, final judgment court. 14 Affirmed. 66 Statutes-at-Large 560, 666(a), provides: 'Consent otherwise, suit. when suit, shall deemed waived right plead laws inapplicable amenable thereto reason sovereignty, subject judgments, orders, jurisdiction, obtain review thereof, manner extent individual like circumstances: Provided, That costs against suit.' See Coffin Left Hand Ditch Co., 443, 446; Mason Hills Land & Cattle 119 404, 204 153. Comment, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 94, 111 (1960). S.Rep.No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 9. And Live Stock company Lewis (Oregon Bd.,) 241 440, 448, 36 637, 641, 60 L.Ed. 1084. 148—9—7. 148—9—13. stated: 'We determining connection August 1, 1876, admission Union; nor, so, these These properly should decided presents specific issues fact clearly drawn.' 577, P.2d, 770.

Classification Label: 7