colorado
river
water
cons
dist
argued
january
decided
march
together
akin
et
al
also
certiorari
order
manage
allocation
water
resolve
conflicting
claims
thereto
colorado
enacted
legislation
state
divided
seven
water
divisions
procedure
established
settlement
water
claims
continuous
basis
state
engineer
charged
responsibility
administering
distribution
state
waters
seeking
adjudication
reserved
rights
claimed
behalf
certain
indian
tribes
well
rights
based
state
law
waters
certain
rivers
division
previously
asserted
reserved
water
rights
three
state
water
divisions
brought
suit
water
users
district
government
invoked
district
jurisdiction
shortly
thereafter
one
defendants
sought
state
division
make
government
party
proceedings
division
purpose
adjudicating
government
claims
state
federal
pursuant
mccarran
amendment
law
provides
consent
join
suit
adjudication
water
rights
administration
rights
appears
owns
acquiring
rights
appropriation
state
law
otherwise
district
abstention
grounds
granted
motion
dismiss
government
suit
appeals
reversed
holding
jurisdiction
suit
existed
abstention
inappropriate
held
mccarran
amendment
clear
language
legislative
history
divest
district
jurisdiction
litigation
effect
amendment
give
consent
state
jurisdiction
concurrent
federal
jurisdiction
controversies
involving
federal
water
rights
pp
amendment
includes
consent
determine
state
reserved
water
rights
held
behalf
indians
see
district
eagle
county
district
water
div
exercise
state
jurisdiction
imperil
rights
breach
government
special
obligation
protect
indians
pp
abstention
doctrine
confined
three
categories
cases
none
applies
litigation
bar
hence
district
dismissal
basis
abstention
inappropriate
pp
several
factors
however
present
litigation
counsel
exercise
concurrent
federal
jurisdiction
clearly
supporting
dismissal
government
action
resolution
claims
proceedings
pp
significantly
dismissal
furthers
policy
mccarran
amendment
recognizing
desirability
unified
adjudication
water
rights
availability
state
systems
like
one
colorado
adjudication
management
rights
use
state
waters
colorado
legislation
established
continuous
proceeding
adjudicating
water
rights
antedated
government
suit
reached
claims
perhaps
month
month
inclusively
totality
district
water
div
supra
pp
significant
factors
include
apparent
absence
dismissal
district
proceedings
filing
complaint
extensive
involvement
state
water
rights
occasioned
suit
defendants
distance
federal
division
government
existing
participation
proceedings
three
divisions
brennan
delivered
opinion
burger
white
marshall
powell
rehnquist
joined
stewart
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
kenneth
balcomb
argued
cause
petitioners
cases
briefs
macfarlane
attorney
general
colorado
jean
dubofsky
deputy
attorney
general
edward
donovan
solicitor
general
david
robbins
first
assistant
attorney
general
charles
elliott
special
assistant
attorney
general
scott
balcomb
robert
mccarty
george
zoellner
kenneth
broadhurst
glenn
saunders
charles
beise
monte
pascoe
howard
shapiro
argued
cause
cases
brief
solicitor
general
bork
acting
assistant
attorney
general
kiechel
deputy
solicitor
general
randolph
edmund
clark
lawrence
fn
brief
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
cases
filed
respective
bruce
babbitt
attorney
general
arizona
evelle
younger
attorney
general
california
wayne
kidwell
attorney
general
idaho
curt
schneider
attorney
general
kansas
robert
woodahl
attorney
general
montana
paul
douglas
attorney
general
nebraska
robert
list
attorney
general
nevada
antonio
anaya
attorney
general
new
mexico
allen
olson
attorney
general
north
dakota
larry
derryberry
attorney
general
oklahoma
lee
johnson
attorney
general
oregon
william
janklow
attorney
general
south
dakota
john
hill
attorney
general
texas
vernon
romney
attorney
general
utah
slade
gorton
attorney
general
washington
frank
mendicino
attorney
general
wyoming
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
cases
filed
richard
baenen
marvin
sonosky
anthony
rogers
national
congress
american
indians
et
al
robert
pelcyger
southern
ute
indian
tribe
et
al
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
mccarran
amendment
stat
provides
consent
hereby
given
join
defendant
suit
adjudication
rights
use
water
river
system
source
administration
rights
appears
owner
process
acquiring
water
rights
appropriation
state
law
purchase
exchange
otherwise
necessary
party
suit
questions
presented
case
concern
effect
mccarran
amendment
upon
jurisdiction
federal
district
courts
suits
determination
water
rights
brought
trustee
certain
indian
tribes
owner
various
government
claims
probable
problem
southwest
section
nation
critical
scarcity
water
southwestern
populations
grown
conflicting
claims
scarce
resource
increased
meet
claims
several
southwestern
established
elaborate
procedures
allocation
water
adjudication
conflicting
claims
resource
colorado
enacted
water
rights
determination
administration
act
effort
revamp
legal
procedures
determining
claims
water
within
state
colorado
act
state
divided
seven
water
divisions
division
encompassing
one
entire
drainage
basins
larger
rivers
colorado
adjudication
water
claims
within
division
occurs
continuous
basis
month
water
referees
division
rule
applications
water
rights
filed
within
preceding
five
months
refer
applications
water
judge
division
every
six
months
water
judge
passes
referred
applications
contested
decisions
referees
state
engineer
engineers
division
responsible
administration
distribution
waters
state
according
determinations
division
colorado
applies
doctrine
prior
appropriation
establishing
rights
use
water
doctrine
one
acquires
right
water
diverting
natural
source
applying
beneficial
use
continued
beneficial
use
water
required
order
maintain
right
periods
shortage
priority
among
confirmed
rights
determined
according
date
initial
diversion
reserved
rights
extend
indian
reservations
winters
federal
lands
national
parks
forests
arizona
california
reserved
rights
claimed
case
affect
waters
within
colorado
water
division
november
government
instituted
suit
district
district
colorado
invoking
jurisdiction
district
located
denver
miles
division
suit
water
users
sought
declaration
government
rights
waters
certain
rivers
tributaries
located
division
suit
government
asserted
reserved
rights
behalf
behalf
certain
indian
tribes
well
rights
based
state
law
sought
appointment
water
master
administer
waters
decreed
prior
institution
suit
government
pursued
adjudication
reserved
rights
water
claims
based
state
law
water
divisions
government
continues
participate
fully
divisions
shortly
federal
suit
commenced
one
defendants
suit
filed
application
state
division
seeking
order
directing
service
process
order
make
party
proceedings
division
purpose
adjudicating
government
claims
state
federal
january
served
pursuant
authority
mccarran
amendment
several
defendants
intervenors
federal
proceeding
filed
motion
district
dismiss
ground
amendment
without
jurisdiction
determine
federal
water
rights
without
deciding
jurisdictional
question
district
june
granted
motion
unreported
oral
opinion
stating
doctrine
abstention
required
deference
proceedings
division
appeal
appeals
tenth
circuit
reversed
akin
holding
suit
within
jurisdiction
abstention
inappropriate
granted
certiorari
consider
important
questions
whether
mccarran
amendment
terminated
jurisdiction
federal
courts
adjudicate
federal
water
rights
whether
jurisdiction
terminated
district
dismissal
case
nevertheless
appropriate
reverse
ii
first
consider
question
jurisdiction
section
provides
district
courts
shall
original
jurisdiction
civil
actions
brought
federal
government
xcept
otherwise
provided
act
congress
thus
necessary
examine
whether
mccarran
amendment
act
congress
excepting
jurisdiction
mccarran
amendment
terms
least
indicate
repeal
jurisdiction
indeed
subsection
amendment
uncodified
provides
none
funds
appropriated
title
may
used
preparation
prosecution
suit
district
southern
district
california
southern
division
america
fallbrook
public
utility
district
public
service
corporation
state
california
others
act
july
pub
stat
beyond
terms
legislative
history
amendment
evidences
clear
purpose
terminate
portion
jurisdiction
indeed
three
bills
proposed
approximately
time
amendment
expressly
effect
precluding
suits
district
determination
water
rights
failed
passage
senate
report
amendment
purpose
proposed
legislation
amended
permit
joinder
party
defendant
suit
adjudication
rights
use
water
nothing
statement
purpose
indicates
intent
correlatively
diminish
jurisdiction
similarly
senator
mccarran
introduced
legislation
senate
stated
letter
made
part
senate
report
legislation
intended
used
purpose
allow
joined
suit
wherein
necessary
adjudicate
rights
various
owners
given
stream
view
mccarran
amendment
language
legislative
history
controlling
principles
statutory
construction
require
conclusion
amendment
constitute
exception
provided
act
congress
repealed
jurisdiction
district
courts
entertain
federal
water
suits
statutes
clearly
defining
jurisdiction
courts
force
effect
provisions
disturbed
mere
implication
flowing
subsequent
legislation
rosencrans
see
morton
mancari
jackson
absence
affirmative
showing
intention
repeal
permissible
justification
repeal
implication
earlier
later
statutes
irreconcilable
morton
mancari
supra
terms
legislative
history
mccarran
amendment
indicate
intent
repeal
also
irreconcilability
operation
statutes
immediate
effect
amendment
give
consent
jurisdiction
state
courts
concurrent
jurisdiction
federal
courts
controversies
involving
federal
rights
use
water
irreconcilability
existence
concurrent
state
federal
jurisdiction
concurrency
example
long
existed
federal
diversity
jurisdiction
accordingly
hold
mccarran
amendment
way
diminished
jurisdiction
district
jurisdiction
hear
case
iii
turn
next
question
whether
suit
nevertheless
properly
dismissed
view
concurrent
state
proceedings
division
first
consider
whether
mccarran
amendment
provided
consent
determine
federal
reserved
rights
held
behalf
indians
state
question
previously
squarely
addressed
given
claims
indian
water
rights
case
dismissal
clearly
inappropriate
state
jurisdiction
decide
claims
conclude
state
jurisdiction
indian
water
rights
amendment
district
eagle
county
district
water
div
held
provisions
mccarran
amendment
whereby
consent
given
join
defendant
suit
adjudication
administration
water
rights
appears
owner
appropriation
state
law
purchase
exchange
otherwise
subject
federal
reserved
rights
general
adjudication
state
proceedings
determination
water
rights
specifically
held
reserved
rights
included
rights
otherwise
owner
district
eagle
county
supra
though
eagle
county
water
div
involve
reserved
rights
indian
reservations
viewing
government
trusteeship
indian
rights
ownership
logic
cases
clearly
extends
rights
indeed
eagle
county
spoke
rights
indian
rights
without
suggestion
distinction
purposes
amendment
amendment
language
also
underlying
policy
dictates
construction
including
indian
rights
provisions
eagle
county
rejected
conclusion
federal
reserved
rights
general
reached
amendment
reason
amendment
deals
statute
concerning
adjudication
rights
use
water
river
system
consideration
applies
well
federal
water
rights
reserved
indian
reservations
cogently
senate
report
amendment
observed
administration
adjudication
water
rights
state
laws
state
courts
vested
jurisdiction
necessary
proper
efficient
disposition
thereof
reason
interlocking
adjudicated
rights
stream
system
order
action
affecting
one
right
affects
rights
accordingly
water
users
stream
practically
every
case
interested
necessary
parties
proceedings
apparent
water
user
claiming
hold
right
reason
ownership
thereof
departments
permitted
claim
immunity
suit
orders
state
claims
materially
interfere
lawful
equitable
use
water
beneficial
use
water
users
amenable
bound
decrees
orders
state
courts
finally
legislative
history
demonstrates
mccarran
amendment
construed
reaching
federal
water
rights
reserved
behalf
indians
unmistakably
understanding
proponents
opponents
legislation
comprehended
water
rights
reserved
indians
senate
hearings
amendment
participants
department
justice
department
interior
made
clear
proposal
include
water
rights
reserved
behalf
indians
addition
senate
report
amendment
took
note
recommendation
department
interior
report
consent
suit
given
indian
rights
rejected
recommendation
government
argues
fiduciary
responsibility
protect
indian
rights
jurisdiction
indian
property
recognized
unless
expressly
conferred
congress
recognized
however
action
destruction
personal
property
may
brought
indian
tribe
uthority
sue
implied
turner
moreover
government
argument
rests
incorrect
assumption
consent
state
jurisdiction
purpose
determining
water
rights
imperils
rights
way
breaches
special
obligation
federal
government
protect
indians
mere
subjection
indian
rights
legal
challenge
state
however
imperil
rights
suit
brought
government
district
declaration
suit
absent
consent
amendment
eventually
necessitated
resolve
conflicting
claims
scarce
resource
government
abdicated
responsibility
fully
defend
indian
rights
state
indian
interests
may
satisfactorily
protected
regimes
state
law
see
cf
california
oregon
power
beaver
portland
cement
amendment
way
abridges
substantive
claim
behalf
indians
doctrine
reserved
rights
moreover
eagle
county
said
questions
arising
collision
private
rights
reserved
rights
including
volume
scope
particular
reserved
rights
federal
questions
preserved
reviewed
final
judgment
colorado
next
consider
whether
district
dismissal
appropriate
doctrine
abstention
hold
dismissal
supported
doctrine
forms
abstention
exercise
federal
jurisdiction
exception
rule
doctrine
abstention
district
may
decline
exercise
postpone
exercise
jurisdiction
extraordinary
narrow
exception
duty
district
adjudicate
controversy
properly
abdication
obligation
decide
cases
justified
doctrine
exceptional
circumstances
order
parties
repair
state
clearly
serve
important
countervailing
interest
county
allegheny
frank
mashuda
never
doctrine
equity
federal
exercise
judicial
discretion
dismiss
suit
merely
state
entertain
alabama
pub
serv
southern
frankfurter
concurring
result
decisions
confined
circumstances
appropriate
abstention
three
general
categories
abstention
appropriate
cases
presenting
federal
constitutional
issue
might
mooted
presented
different
posture
state
determination
pertinent
state
law
county
allegheny
frank
mashuda
supra
see
lake
carriers
assn
macmullan
gas
pipeline
ideal
cement
railroad
texas
pullman
case
however
presents
federal
constitutional
issue
decision
abstention
also
appropriate
presented
difficult
questions
state
law
bearing
policy
problems
substantial
public
import
whose
importance
transcends
result
case
bar
louisiana
power
light
city
thibodaux
example
involved
question
particular
concern
scope
eminent
domain
power
municipalities
state
law
see
also
kaiser
steel
ranch
hawks
hamill
cases
however
state
question
need
determinative
state
policy
enough
exercise
federal
review
question
case
similar
cases
disruptive
state
efforts
establish
coherent
policy
respect
matter
substantial
public
concern
burford
sun
oil
example
held
suit
seeking
review
reasonableness
texas
state
law
state
commission
permit
drill
oil
wells
dismissed
district
reasonableness
permit
case
transcendent
importance
review
reasonableness
federal
courts
future
cases
state
established
elaborate
review
system
dealing
geological
complexities
oil
gas
fields
impermissibly
disruptive
effect
state
policy
management
fields
see
also
alabama
pub
serv
southern
supra
present
case
clearly
fall
within
second
category
abstention
state
claims
involved
case
state
law
applied
appears
settled
questions
bearing
state
policy
presented
decision
decision
state
claims
impair
efforts
implement
state
policy
burford
sure
federal
claims
involved
case
go
establishment
water
rights
may
conflict
similar
rights
based
state
law
mere
potential
conflict
results
adjudications
without
warrant
staying
exercise
federal
jurisdiction
see
meredith
winter
kline
burke
constr
mcclellan
carland
potential
conflict
involving
state
claims
federal
claims
impair
impermissibly
state
effort
effect
policy
respecting
allocation
state
waters
exercise
federal
jurisdiction
interrupt
efforts
restraining
exercise
authority
vested
state
officers
see
pennsylvania
williams
hawks
hamill
supra
finally
abstention
appropriate
absent
bad
faith
harassment
patently
invalid
state
statute
federal
jurisdiction
invoked
purpose
restraining
state
criminal
proceedings
younger
harris
douglas
city
jeannette
state
nuisance
proceedings
antecedent
criminal
prosecution
directed
obtaining
closure
places
exhibiting
obscene
films
huffman
pursue
collection
state
taxes
great
lakes
dredge
dock
huffman
like
previous
two
categories
category
also
include
case
deal
neither
criminal
proceeding
nuisance
proceeding
tax
collection
also
deal
attempt
restrain
actions
seek
declaratory
judgment
validity
state
criminal
law
criminal
proceedings
pending
state
although
case
falls
within
none
abstention
categories
principles
unrelated
considerations
proper
constitutional
adjudication
regard
relations
govern
situations
involving
contemporaneous
exercise
concurrent
jurisdictions
either
federal
courts
state
federal
courts
principles
rest
considerations
ise
judicial
administration
giving
regard
conservation
judicial
resources
comprehensive
disposition
litigation
kerotest
mfg
fire
equipment
see
columbia
plaza
security
national
bank
app
generally
state
federal
courts
rule
pendency
action
state
bar
proceedings
concerning
matter
federal
jurisdiction
mcclellan
carland
supra
see
donovan
city
dallas
federal
district
courts
however
though
precise
rule
evolved
general
principle
avoid
duplicative
litigation
see
kerotest
mfg
fire
equipment
supra
steelman
continent
landis
north
american
difference
general
approach
concurrent
jurisdiction
wholly
federal
concurrent
jurisdiction
stems
virtually
unflagging
obligation
federal
courts
exercise
jurisdiction
given
england
medical
examiners
mcclellan
carland
supra
cohens
virginia
wheat
dictum
given
obligation
absence
weightier
considerations
constitutional
adjudication
relations
circumstances
permitting
dismissal
federal
suit
due
presence
concurrent
state
proceeding
reasons
wise
judicial
administration
considerably
limited
circumstances
appropriate
abstention
former
circumstances
though
exceptional
nevertheless
exist
held
example
first
assuming
jurisdiction
property
may
exercise
jurisdiction
exclusion
courts
donovan
city
dallas
supra
princess
lida
thompson
bank
new
york
cf
markham
allen
klein
true
even
government
claimant
existing
state
proceedings
sought
invoke
jurisdiction
jurisdictional
provision
antecedent
bank
new
york
supra
cf
leiter
minerals
assessing
appropriateness
dismissal
event
exercise
concurrent
jurisdiction
federal
may
also
consider
factors
inconvenience
federal
forum
cf
gulf
oil
gilbert
desirability
avoiding
piecemeal
litigation
cf
brillhart
excess
ins
order
jurisdiction
obtained
concurrent
forums
pacific
live
stock
oregon
water
one
factor
necessarily
determinative
carefully
considered
judgment
taking
account
obligation
exercise
jurisdiction
combination
factors
counselling
exercise
required
see
landis
north
american
supra
clearest
justifications
warrant
dismissal
turning
present
case
number
factors
clearly
counsel
concurrent
federal
proceedings
important
mccarran
amendment
clear
federal
policy
evinced
legislation
avoidance
piecemeal
adjudication
water
rights
river
system
policy
akin
underlying
rule
requiring
jurisdiction
yielded
first
acquiring
control
property
concern
instances
avoiding
generation
additional
litigation
permitting
inconsistent
dispositions
property
concern
heightened
respect
water
rights
relationships
among
highly
interdependent
indeed
recognized
actions
seeking
allocation
water
essentially
involve
disposition
property
best
conducted
unified
proceedings
see
pacific
live
stock
oregon
water
supra
consent
jurisdiction
given
mccarran
amendment
bespeaks
policy
recognizes
availability
comprehensive
state
systems
adjudication
water
rights
means
achieving
goals
already
observed
colorado
water
rights
determination
administration
act
established
system
adjudication
management
rights
use
state
waters
government
concedes
recognized
eagle
county
water
div
act
established
single
continuous
proceeding
water
rights
adjudication
antedated
suit
district
district
eagle
county
district
water
div
proceeding
reaches
claims
perhaps
month
month
inclusively
totality
ibid
additionally
responsibility
managing
state
waters
end
allocated
accordance
adjudicated
water
rights
given
state
engineer
beyond
congressional
policy
expressed
mccarran
amendment
consistent
furtherance
policy
also
find
significant
apparent
absence
proceedings
district
filing
complaint
prior
motion
dismiss
extensive
involvement
state
water
rights
occasioned
suit
naming
defendants
distance
district
denver
division
existing
participation
government
division
proceedings
emphasize
however
overlook
heavy
obligation
exercise
jurisdiction
need
decide
example
whether
despite
mccarran
amendment
dismissal
warranted
extensive
proceedings
occurred
district
prior
dismissal
involvement
state
water
rights
less
extensive
state
proceeding
respect
inadequate
resolve
federal
claims
opposing
factors
particularly
policy
underlying
mccarran
amendment
justify
district
dismissal
particular
case
judgment
appeals
reversed
judgment
district
dismissing
complaint
affirmed
reasons
stated
ordered
footnotes
consent
hereby
given
join
defendant
suit
adjudication
rights
use
water
river
system
source
administration
rights
appears
owner
process
acquiring
water
rights
appropriation
state
law
purchase
exchange
otherwise
necessary
party
suit
party
suit
shall
deemed
waived
right
plead
state
laws
inapplicable
amenable
thereto
reason
sovereignty
shall
subject
judgments
orders
decrees
jurisdiction
may
obtain
review
thereof
manner
extent
private
individual
like
circumstances
provided
judgment
costs
shall
entered
suit
summons
process
suit
shall
served
upon
attorney
general
designated
representative
nothing
act
shall
construed
authorizing
joinder
suit
controversy
involving
right
use
water
interstate
stream
title
provides
except
otherwise
provided
act
congress
district
courts
shall
original
jurisdiction
civil
actions
suits
proceedings
commenced
agency
officer
thereof
expressly
authorized
sue
act
congress
see
rev
stat
ann
supp
cal
water
code
supp
rev
stat
et
seq
stat
ann
supp
rev
stat
ann
et
seq
see
const
art
xvi
rev
stat
ann
coffin
left
hand
ditch
see
city
colorado
springs
bender
city
colorado
springs
yust
jurisdiction
specific
district
suit
based
see
fallbrook
util
supp
sd
cal
sess
sess
sess
district
also
jurisdiction
suit
general
jurisdiction
reasons
mccarran
amendment
affect
jurisdiction
either
supra
indeed
exclusion
indian
rights
conclusion
conflicts
indian
rights
well
practical
matters
adjudication
might
effect
requiring
adjudication
along
indian
rights
thereby
effectively
vitiating
construction
amendment
eagle
country
water
div
see
hearings
subcommittee
senate
committee
judiciary
supra
sure
provide
nothing
sections
shall
confer
jurisdiction
upon
state
adjudicate
probate
proceedings
otherwise
ownership
right
possession
real
personal
property
including
water
rights
belonging
indian
indian
tribe
held
trust
provision
sections
however
qualifies
import
general
consent
state
jurisdiction
given
sections
purport
limit
special
consent
jurisdiction
given
mccarran
amendment
contrary
conclusion
foreclosed
principle
construction
clear
intention
otherwise
specific
statute
controlled
nullified
general
one
regardless
priority
enactment
morton
mancari
note
burford
sun
oil
alabama
pub
serv
southern
differ
louisiana
power
light
city
thibodaux
county
allegheny
frank
mashuda
former
two
cases
unlike
latter
two
raised
colorable
constitutional
claims
therefore
brought
well
diversity
jurisdiction
abstention
burford
alabama
pub
serv
effect
avoiding
federal
constitutional
issue
opinions
indicate
additional
ground
abstention
cases
see
alabama
pub
serv
southern
burford
sun
oil
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
two
groups
cases
share
least
one
common
characteristic
pullman
purpose
avoiding
necessity
federal
constitutional
adjudication
relevant
held
course
opportunity
avoid
decision
constitutional
question
alone
justify
abstention
federal
see
harman
forssenius
baggett
bullitt
indeed
presence
federal
basis
jurisdiction
may
raise
level
justification
needed
abstention
see
burford
sun
oil
supra
hawks
hamill
case
properly
within
category
cases
discretion
grant
injunctive
relief
see
younger
harris
cf
samuels
mackell
reasons
finding
abstention
inappropriate
case
make
unnecessary
consider
abstention
appropriate
federal
government
seeks
invoke
federal
jurisdiction
cf
leiter
minerals
see
brief
observed
complaint
filed
district
november
federal
government
served
state
proceedings
january
shortly
thereafter
february
motion
dismiss
filed
district
point
appear
district
dealt
manner
suit
pending
whether
similar
considerations
permit
dismissal
water
suit
brought
private
party
federal
district
question
need
decide
justice
stewart
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
concur
dissenting
says
district
district
colorado
clearly
jurisdiction
lawsuit
agree
says
mccarran
amendment
way
diminished
district
jurisdiction
agree
also
says
federal
courts
virtually
unflagging
obligation
exercise
jurisdiction
given
agree
finally
says
nothing
abstention
doctrine
forms
justified
district
dismissal
government
complaint
agree
views
seem
lead
ineluctably
conclusion
district
wrong
dismissing
complaint
yet
holds
order
dismissal
appropriate
conclusion
must
respectfully
disagree
holding
shall
allowed
proceed
lawsuit
relies
principally
cases
reflecting
rule
control
property
subject
suit
necessary
order
proceed
cause
grant
relief
sought
jurisdiction
one
must
necessity
yield
penn
general
casualty
pennsylvania
ex
rel
schnader
see
also
donovan
city
dallas
princess
lida
thompson
bank
new
york
cases
make
clear
rule
applies
exclusive
control
subject
matter
necessary
effectuate
judgment
moore
federal
practice
federal
need
obtain
rem
quasi
rem
jurisdiction
order
decide
issues
asked
simply
determine
matter
federal
law
whether
federal
reservations
water
rights
occurred
date
scope
reservations
district
make
determination
without
control
river
rule
invoked
thus
support
conclusion
reaches
princess
lida
case
example
reason
surrender
federal
jurisdiction
administration
trust
fact
state
already
assumed
jurisdiction
trust
estate
case
recognized
rationale
ha
application
case
federal
wherein
plaintiff
seeks
merely
adjudication
right
interest
basis
claim
fund
possession
state
stressed
question
presented
federal
right
person
participate
res
quantum
interest
similarly
bank
new
york
case
supra
stressed
object
suits
take
property
depositaries
control
state
vest
property
suits
merely
establish
debt
right
share
property
thus
obtain
adjudication
might
without
disturbing
control
state
ibid
see
also
markham
allen
klein
see
generally
moore
federal
practice
wright
miller
cooper
federal
practice
procedure
pp
precedents
cited
thus
fail
support
decision
case
expressly
point
opposite
direction
present
suit
short
analogous
administration
trust
rather
claim
right
participate
since
litigation
ask
control
administration
river
determine
specific
rights
flow
water
river
almost
exact
analogue
suit
seeking
determination
rights
flow
income
trust
principal
reason
deciding
close
doors
federal
courthouse
case
seems
stem
view
decision
avoid
piecemeal
adjudication
water
rights
extent
view
based
special
considerations
governing
rem
proceedings
without
precedential
basis
decisions
discussed
demonstrate
extent
view
based
realistic
practicalities
case
simply
wrong
relegation
government
state
courts
avoid
piecemeal
litigation
colorado
courts
currently
engaged
two
types
proceedings
state
law
first
processing
new
claims
water
based
recent
appropriations
second
integrating
new
awards
water
rights
past
decisions
awarding
rights
one
tabulation
water
source
claims
involved
case
adjudicated
past
yet
involve
recent
appropriations
water
fact
claims
wholly
dissimilar
normal
state
water
claims
based
actual
beneficial
use
water
rather
intention
formed
time
federal
land
use
established
reserve
certain
amount
water
support
federal
reservations
state
therefore
conduct
separate
proceedings
determine
claims
state
adjudicates
claims
incorporated
water
source
tabulations
suit
allowed
proceed
federal
procedures
followed
federal
decree
incorporated
state
tabulation
federal
decrees
incorporated
past
thus
process
occur
regardless
forum
considers
claims
whether
virtually
identical
separate
proceedings
take
place
federal
state
adjudication
claims
neither
less
piecemeal
essentially
process
followed
instance
says
virtual
unflagging
obligation
federal
exercise
jurisdiction
conferred
upon
obedience
obligation
particularly
appropriate
case
least
two
reasons
first
issues
involved
issues
federal
law
federal
likely
state
familiar
federal
water
law
experience
interpreting
relevant
federal
statutes
regulations
indian
treaties
moreover
tried
federal
issues
federal
law
reviewable
federal
appellate
whereas
federal
judicial
review
state
courts
resolution
issues
federal
law
possible
review
exercise
certiorari
jurisdiction
second
federal
claims
lawsuit
relate
water
reserved
indian
reservations
necessary
determine
jurisdiction
claims
support
proposition
federal
appropriate
forum
state
determination
questions
importance
indians
long
recognized
policy
leaving
indians
free
state
jurisdiction
control
deeply
rooted
nation
history
mcclanahan
arizona
state
tax
quoting
rice
olson
says
nly
clearest
justifications
warrant
dismissal
lawsuit
within
jurisdiction
federal
opinion
justification
district
order
dismissal
case
affirm
judgment
appeals
except
otherwise
provided
act
congress
district
courts
shall
original
jurisdiction
civil
actions
suits
proceedings
commenced
nothing
mccarran
amendment
legislative
history
read
limiting
jurisdiction
federal
courts
law
operates
pro
tanto
waiver
sovereign
immunity
district
eagle
county
district
water
div
see
england
medical
examiners
meredith
winter
see
ante
donovan
city
dallas
relevance
insofar
opinion
contained
brief
summary
discussion
princess
lida
case
lists
four
policy
reasons
appropriateness
district
dismissal
lawsuit
reasons
insubstantial
first
fact
significant
proceedings
yet
taken
place
federal
time
dismissal
means
federal
prompt
granting
defendants
motion
dismiss
time
course
proceedings
involving
government
claims
taken
place
state
either
second
geographic
distance
federal
rivers
question
hardly
significant
factor
age
rapid
easy
transportation
since
basic
issues
involve
determination
amount
water
government
intended
reserve
rather
amount
actually
appropriated
given
date
little
likelihood
live
testimony
water
district
residents
necessary
event
federal
district
colorado
authorized
sit
durango
headquarters
water
division
third
government
willingness
participate
state
proceedings
certainly
mean
right
bring
action
unless
today
unearthed
new
kind
waiver
finally
fact
many
defendants
federal
suit
hardly
relevant
indicates
federal
necessary
parties
order
issue
decree
finally
setting
government
claims
indeed
presence
interested
parties
federal
made
lawsuit
kind
unified
proceeding
envisioned
pacific
live
stock
oregon
water
true
notes
relationship
among
water
rights
interdependent
water
levels
river
low
junior
appropriators
may
able
take
water
river
mistaken
however
suggesting
determination
priority
related
determination
priorities
priority
established
holder
right
take
certain
amount
water
seniority
date
priority
established
determination
affect
affected
establishment
priorities
justice
stevens
dissenting
join
justice
stewart
dissenting
opinion
add
three
brief
comments
first
find
holding
may
litigate
federal
claim
federal
jurisdiction
thereof
particularly
anomalous
join
disposition
unless
commanded
unambiguous
statutory
mandate
clearly
identifiable
applicable
rule
law
mccarran
amendment
department
justice
appropriation
act
stat
announces
rule
second
federal
government
surely
lesser
right
access
federal
forum
private
litigant
indian
asserting
claim
today
holding
necessarily
restrict
access
federal
private
plaintiffs
asserting
water
rights
claims
colorado
rather
surprising
byproduct
mccarran
amendment
basis
concluding
congress
intended
amendment
impair
private
citizen
right
assert
federal
claim
federal
third
even
assumption
case
decided
balancing
factors
weighing
exercise
federal
jurisdiction
believe
defer
judgment
appeals
rather
evaluate
factors
first
instance
case
district
erroneously
dismissed
complaint
abstention
grounds
appeals
found
reason
litigation
go
forward
federal
facts
number
parties
distance
water
dispute
character
colorado
proceedings
matters
appeals
sitting
denver
able
evaluate
although
agree
parts
ii
opinion
respectfully
dissent
decision
reverse
judgment
appeals
tenth
circuit