Green River Adjudication v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 10284,10284 |
| Citation | 17 Utah 2d 50,404 P.2d 251 |
| Parties | d 50 In re GREEN RIVER ADJUDICATION v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
William T. Thurman, U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Dallin W. Jensen, Asst. Atty. Gen., E. J. Skeen, Salt Lake City, Lee S. Nebeker, Green River, Wyo., Hugh W. Colton, Vernal, Dwight L. King, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
The United States government appeals from a decree of our Third District Court awarding rights to the use of water, surface and subsurface, within the drainage area of Green River above the confluence of, but including Pot Creek, in Daggett, Summit and Uintah Counties.
The action was initiated upon petition of water users for an adjudication of water rights as authorized by Sec. 73-4-1, U.C.A.1953. The United States asserted ownership of and submitted for adjudication 715 water users claims which had been established under the laws of the State of Utah. Pursuant to the proposed determination of water rights prepared by the State Engineer, the District Court entered its decree adjudicating the water rights involved, which included awarding the claims mentioned to the United States. 1
The United States accepts the decree as entered, but urges that in addition to the specific water rights it was awarded, the court should have recognized additional but unspecified water rights which may exist by virtue of Federal withdrawal of public lands and which the government may require for use in the future.
The position of counsel for the Federal government as stated in its brief is that:
It is thus magnanimously conceded that private individuals have acquired their water rights adjudicated in this proceeding, but it is contended that they must always be inferior and subordinate to rights which the government might decide at a later time to assert. Counsel argues that such rights of private parties
'create no vested right against the United States * * *'
and further that
'this would leave the establishment of the extent of the reserved rights [of the United States] to future determination.'
It will be seen that the foregoing contention squarely poses the question whether the United States is bound by the principle of res adjudicata in a water adjudication.
The objective of an adjudication as authorized by Sec. 73-4-1, U.C.A.1953, is to determine and settle water rights which have not been adjudicated or which may be uncertain or in dispute. To accomplish that purpose satisfactorily the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bell
...77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983); Green River Adjudication v. United States, 17 Utah 2d 50, 52, 404 P.2d 251, 252 (1965). The United States notes that Arizona v. California involved a final decree of water rights, not an amend......
-
Utah State Eng'r v. Johnson (In re Utah Lake & Jordan River), 20160547-CA
...all such rights by decree." Olds , 2004 UT 106, ¶ 5, 110 P.3d 666 (quotation simplified); see also Green River Adjudication v. United States , 17 Utah 2d 50, 404 P.2d 251, 252 (Utah 1965) ("The objective of an adjudication ... is to determine and settle water rights which have not been adju......
-
United States v. Hennen
...609, at 617, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed. 2d 15 (1963); State of California v. Rank, 9 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 340; Green River Adjudication v. United States, 1965, 17 Utah 2d 50, 404 P.2d 251; Turner v. Kings River Conservation District, 9 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d QUESTION II However, it appears to thi......
-
Provo River Water Users' Ass'n v. Morgan
...rights). Accordingly, "the judgment arrived at must have some degree of finality and solidarity," Green River Adjudication v. United States, 17 Utah 2d 50, 52, 404 P.2d 251, 252 (1965), and collateral attacks should be discouraged, see Swenson at However, in the instant case, the policy fav......