Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
Encyclopedia
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
created a new doctrine of abstention
, to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.
, water scarcity was (and remains) a critical problem. The McCarran Amendment, , was a statute
enacted by United States Congress
in 1952 allowing the United States to be joined as a defendant
in certain suits concerning the adjudication or administration of rights to use of waters
. In 1969, the state of Colorado
enacted a law to attempt to reorganize the procedure for legal determination of water claims
within the state.
The procedure that Colorado created divided the state into seven Water Divisions
, each one encompassing one or more drainage basin
s for the largest river
s in the state. Each month, Water Referees in each division would rule on applications for water rights, or refer the case to a Water Judge, who would rule on referred or contested applications on a six-month schedule, applying the prior appropriation doctrine
. A State Engineer, along with engineer
s for each division, were responsible for the administration and distribution of waters in each division.
reserves the water rights on federal lands
such as Indian reservation
s and national parks and forests
. The rights to such federal lands in the state of Colorado affect the rights of users in Colorado Water Division No.7. On November 14, 1972, the government filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
, asserting jurisdiction
under both (the federal question jurisdiction
statute) and , which grants the United States district courts with original jurisdiction
over all civil actions in which the United States is the plaintiff
. The government sued for a declaratory judgment
asserting its own reserved rights and those of several Native American tribes, against over 1,000 water users named as defendants. The government had previously filed similar suits in three other divisions.
Shortly after the suit over Division No.7 was commenced, one of the defendants in that suit filed an application in state court to join the United States as a party in a state court proceeding, pursuant to the McCarran Amendment. Several defendants in the federal court suit then moved to dismiss
, challenging the federal courts jurisdiction to continue to hear matters pertaining to water rights. The district court granted the defendant's motion on ground of abstention doctrine, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
reversed, holding that abstention was inappropriate.
(1941), Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
(1943), or Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux (1959). Nor was this an attempt to enjoin state criminal proceedings, as in Younger v. Harris
(1971).
However, Brennan also ruled that even though the case did not fall into any of the previously recognized categories of abstention, certain principles of judicial administration militated in favor of upholding the district court's decision to dismiss the case. Even though dismissal of a federal suit to avoid duplicative litigation was something of an exceptional nature, Brennan determined that it was permissible in some circumstances. He compared this case to an in rem
action over the disposition of property
, wherein a court first assuming jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. He listed factors federal courts may consider in determining the appropriateness of dismissal where concurrent jurisdiction exists:
Brennan concluded by explaining that the whole policy advanced by the McCarran Amendment was to avoid "piecemeal adjudication of water rights," which would lead to concurrent litigation with inconsistent outcomes. Congress was well aware of pre-existing state procedures to determine water rights when it passed the McCarran Amendment. Furthermore, the federal government was already involved in pending state lawsuits in three other Water Divisions (4, 5, and 6), there was a 300-mile distance between the federal courthouse
in Denver
and the state courthouse in Division 7 (which potentially created transportation difficulties for the over 1,000 defendants named in the federal suit), and there had been very few proceedings in the federal suit prior to the district court's dismissal. Brennan held that when all these factors were taken into account, the district court ruled correctly in dismissing the suit.
agreed with the majority that the McCarran Amendment did not diminish the federal courts' jurisdiction, and that the conventional doctrines of abstention were not implicated here. He disputed the majority's comparison of this suit to an in rem action, because a rule creating exclusive jurisdiction
for the first court to take control of the property only applies when exclusive control of the property in question is required. In the litigation of water rights, where actual administration or control of a river was not being determined, this rule was clearly unnecessary.
Additionally, Stewart reasoned that dismissal of the federal suit was unnecessary because the rights the federal government sought to uphold were different from those being litigated in the state courts. Specifically, the federal suit was about rights the federal government had previously reserved, rather than rights based on the prior appropriation doctrine. Finally, Stewart gave two more reasons not to dismiss the federal suit: issues of federal law were involved, as were the rights of Native American tribes (who were typically free of state jurisdiction).
also added a brief dissenting opinion. He felt that the majority was unfairly shrinking the scope of federal jurisdiction
, and that it was anomalous to forbid the federal government the right to a federal forum. He urged the affimance of the opinion of the Tenth Circuit.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
created a new doctrine of abstention
Abstention doctrine
An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law in the United States of America might apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court...
, to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.
Background
In the Southwestern United StatesSouthwestern United States
The Southwestern United States is a region defined in different ways by different sources. Broad definitions include nearly a quarter of the United States, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah...
, water scarcity was (and remains) a critical problem. The McCarran Amendment, , was a statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
enacted by United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
in 1952 allowing the United States to be joined as a defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
in certain suits concerning the adjudication or administration of rights to use of waters
Water right
Water right in water law refers to the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious...
. In 1969, the state of Colorado
Colorado
Colorado is a U.S. state that encompasses much of the Rocky Mountains as well as the northeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau and the western edge of the Great Plains...
enacted a law to attempt to reorganize the procedure for legal determination of water claims
Water law
Water law is the field of law dealing with the ownership, control, and use of water as a resource. It is most closely related to property law, but has also become influenced by environmental law...
within the state.
The procedure that Colorado created divided the state into seven Water Divisions
Colorado Water Courts
The Colorado Water Courts are specialized state courts of the U.S. state of Colorado. There are seven Water Courts in each of Colorado's seven major river basins: South Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande, Gunnison, Colorado, White, and San Juan. The Water Courts are divisions of the District Courts in...
, each one encompassing one or more drainage basin
Drainage basin
A drainage basin is an extent or an area of land where surface water from rain and melting snow or ice converges to a single point, usually the exit of the basin, where the waters join another waterbody, such as a river, lake, reservoir, estuary, wetland, sea, or ocean...
s for the largest river
River
A river is a natural watercourse, usually freshwater, flowing towards an ocean, a lake, a sea, or another river. In a few cases, a river simply flows into the ground or dries up completely before reaching another body of water. Small rivers may also be called by several other names, including...
s in the state. Each month, Water Referees in each division would rule on applications for water rights, or refer the case to a Water Judge, who would rule on referred or contested applications on a six-month schedule, applying the prior appropriation doctrine
Prior appropriation water rights
Prior appropriation water rights, sometimes known as the Colorado Doctrine in reference to the U.S. Supreme Court case Wyoming v. Colorado, is a system of allocating water rights from a water source that is markedly different from riparian water rights...
. A State Engineer, along with engineer
Engineer
An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems. Engineers design materials, structures, machines and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality,...
s for each division, were responsible for the administration and distribution of waters in each division.
Facts and procedural history
The federal governmentFederal government of the United States
The federal government of the United States is the national government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that is the United States of America. The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government: a legislative, an executive and a judiciary. These branches and...
reserves the water rights on federal lands
Federal lands
Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government.-Primary federal land holders:*Bureau of Land Management*United States Forest Service*United States Fish and Wildlife Service*National Park Service...
such as Indian reservation
Indian reservation
An American Indian reservation is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs...
s and national parks and forests
United States National Forest
National Forest is a classification of federal lands in the United States.National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas owned by the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture. Land management of these areas...
. The rights to such federal lands in the state of Colorado affect the rights of users in Colorado Water Division No.7. On November 14, 1972, the government filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Colorado. The United States Congress organized Colorado as a single judicial district on June 26, 1876, by 19 Stat. 61...
, asserting jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility...
under both (the federal question jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or law of the...
statute) and , which grants the United States district courts with original jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:...
over all civil actions in which the United States is the plaintiff
Plaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
. The government sued for a declaratory judgment
Declaratory judgment
A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute. A declaratory judgment is legally binding, but it does not order any action by a party. In this way, the declaratory judgment is like an action to...
asserting its own reserved rights and those of several Native American tribes, against over 1,000 water users named as defendants. The government had previously filed similar suits in three other divisions.
Shortly after the suit over Division No.7 was commenced, one of the defendants in that suit filed an application in state court to join the United States as a party in a state court proceeding, pursuant to the McCarran Amendment. Several defendants in the federal court suit then moved to dismiss
Involuntary dismissal
Involuntary dismissal is the termination of a court case despite the plaintiff's objection.In United States Federal courts, involuntary dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41....
, challenging the federal courts jurisdiction to continue to hear matters pertaining to water rights. The district court granted the defendant's motion on ground of abstention doctrine, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Colorado* District of Kansas...
reversed, holding that abstention was inappropriate.
Majority opinion
Justice Brennan wrote for the majority. He first determined that the McCarran Amendment did not create an express or implied exception to § 1331 or § 1345, and then turned to the issue of whether or not the district court should have dismissed the suit because of the concurrent proceedings in state court. The McCarran Amendment permitted adjudication of the Native American tribes' rights in state court, and Brennan held there was no strong policy argument to eliminate the state courts' jurisdiction in this area. Moreover, the circumstances necessitating abstention were not present here, largely because this case did not present complex issues of state law or policy to be resolved, as was the case in past abstention cases such as Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate for United States federal courts to abstain from hearing a case in order to allow state courts to decide substantial Constitutional issues that touch upon...
(1941), Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a new doctrine of abstention.-Facts:...
(1943), or Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux (1959). Nor was this an attempt to enjoin state criminal proceedings, as in Younger v. Harris
Younger v. Harris
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.-Facts:A...
(1971).
However, Brennan also ruled that even though the case did not fall into any of the previously recognized categories of abstention, certain principles of judicial administration militated in favor of upholding the district court's decision to dismiss the case. Even though dismissal of a federal suit to avoid duplicative litigation was something of an exceptional nature, Brennan determined that it was permissible in some circumstances. He compared this case to an in rem
In rem
In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem is directed towards a piece of property rather than against a person . The action disputes or seeks to transfer title to property. When title to real estate In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem...
action over the disposition of property
Property
Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation...
, wherein a court first assuming jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. He listed factors federal courts may consider in determining the appropriateness of dismissal where concurrent jurisdiction exists:
- Inconvenience of the federal forum
- The desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation
- The order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums
Brennan concluded by explaining that the whole policy advanced by the McCarran Amendment was to avoid "piecemeal adjudication of water rights," which would lead to concurrent litigation with inconsistent outcomes. Congress was well aware of pre-existing state procedures to determine water rights when it passed the McCarran Amendment. Furthermore, the federal government was already involved in pending state lawsuits in three other Water Divisions (4, 5, and 6), there was a 300-mile distance between the federal courthouse
Courthouse
A courthouse is a building that is home to a local court of law and often the regional county government as well, although this is not the case in some larger cities. The term is common in North America. In most other English speaking countries, buildings which house courts of law are simply...
in Denver
Denver, Colorado
The City and County of Denver is the capital and the most populous city of the U.S. state of Colorado. Denver is a consolidated city-county, located in the South Platte River Valley on the western edge of the High Plains just east of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains...
and the state courthouse in Division 7 (which potentially created transportation difficulties for the over 1,000 defendants named in the federal suit), and there had been very few proceedings in the federal suit prior to the district court's dismissal. Brennan held that when all these factors were taken into account, the district court ruled correctly in dismissing the suit.
Justice Stewart's dissent
Justice StewartPotter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
agreed with the majority that the McCarran Amendment did not diminish the federal courts' jurisdiction, and that the conventional doctrines of abstention were not implicated here. He disputed the majority's comparison of this suit to an in rem action, because a rule creating exclusive jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction
In civil procedure, exclusive jurisdiction exists where one court has the power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts. It is the opposite situation from concurrent jurisdiction, in which more than one court may take jurisdiction over the case.Exclusive jurisdiction is typically...
for the first court to take control of the property only applies when exclusive control of the property in question is required. In the litigation of water rights, where actual administration or control of a river was not being determined, this rule was clearly unnecessary.
Additionally, Stewart reasoned that dismissal of the federal suit was unnecessary because the rights the federal government sought to uphold were different from those being litigated in the state courts. Specifically, the federal suit was about rights the federal government had previously reserved, rather than rights based on the prior appropriation doctrine. Finally, Stewart gave two more reasons not to dismiss the federal suit: issues of federal law were involved, as were the rights of Native American tribes (who were typically free of state jurisdiction).
Justice Stevens' dissent
Justice StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
also added a brief dissenting opinion. He felt that the majority was unfairly shrinking the scope of federal jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction
The United States of America being a federal country is made up of many States and a central government. This central government may be known as the Union, the United States, or the Federal government...
, and that it was anomalous to forbid the federal government the right to a federal forum. He urged the affimance of the opinion of the Tenth Circuit.