Court Opinion

ID: 9883566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:49:31.304031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.653916
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reason that, in my opinion, this Court does not have jurisdiction.
Section 85-2-217, MCA, suspends “all proceedings to generally adjudicate reserved Indian water rights and federal reserved water rights of those tribes and federal agencies which are negotiating . . .” This statute, if applicable, suspends proceedings until July 1, 1985. The majority assumes *163jurisdiction here by holding that the provisions of this statute do not apply to this “supervisory control” proceeding. I disagree.
The majority opinion of this Court joins the United States as a party defendant. This is done pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. section 666. That Amendment provides:
“(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 . . .”
The only way in personam jurisdiction could have been acquired over the United States is pursuant to the above provision of the McCarran Amendment. By asserting jurisdiction over the United States, the majority has conceded that this is a proceeding to adjudicate the rights to the use of water. In so doing, this Court has specifically violated the provisions of section 85-2-217, MCA.
Furthermore, this is a supervisory control action, not a declaratory judgment action. In asserting supervisory control over the water court, we become part of that proceeding, a proceeding to adjudicate water rights.
In 1981, section 85-2-217, MCA, was amended to substitute the word “proceedings” for the word “actions.” This further shows an intent on the part of the legislature to broaden the suspension provisions of the statute. “The word ‘proceeding’ applies to any step to be taken in a cause which is authorized by law in order to enforce the rights of the parties or effectuate the proper conduct of it while pending in court.” State ex rel. Bruce v. District Court of the Second Judicial District (1905), 33 Mont. 359, 362, 83 P. 641, 642. The amendment to the statute clearly embraces this petition for supervisory control.
In addition to the foregoing, I concur with the comments made by the Chief Justice in his dissent.