Court Opinion

ID: 9793439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:47:39.544357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:01.960744
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) .
I concur, save for the conclusion that the U. S. waived its immunity. The petition and its prayer clearly envision a cause seeking a declaration that the administrators, (not the U. S.) for the use of the subject water, should charge early spring runoff water users 100% of the spring wa*435ter they used against their later-season contracted, permanent reservoir water rights. The U. S.’ appropriated rights were admitted and unassailed. No conflict was asserted between it and any other appropriator. No allegation suggested any design to compel an adjudication of the rights of the U. S. There was no contention that the U. S. was' an administrator of rights or that it objected to any existing administration thereof. The petition’s prayer does not hint that the U. S. was a “necessary party” as that phrase connotes. From a casual reading of 43 U.S.C.A. § 666, it seems obvious that the U. S. did not waive its sovereign immunity.