Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. District Court in and for Water Division No…

Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 618, 83 S.Ct. 999, 1005, 10 L.Ed.2d 15, to indicate that 43 U.S.C. § 666 does not cover consent by the United States to be sued in a private suit to determine its rights against a few claimants. The present suit, like the one in the Eagle County case, reaches all claims, perhaps month by month but inclusively in the totality; and, as we said in the other case, if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the United States, the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. District Court in and for Water Division No…

The Department of the Navy administers certain naval petroleum and oil shale reserves which, if ever developed, would require water to accomplish the federal purpose for which the reservations were made.
The major issue-the scope of the consent-to-be-sued provision in 43 U.S.C. § 666-has been covered in the Eagle County opinion and need not be repeated here.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. District Court in and for Water Division No…

Notice was served on the United States pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 666 (b) and it moved to quash the service. That motion was denied. A writ of prohibition was sought in the Supreme Court and it was also denied. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 400 U.S. 940, 91 S.Ct. 246, 27 L.Ed.2d 244.
The area covered by this suit includes vastly more extensive water rights than those involved in the Eagle County case. The Forest Service administers four separate national forests in the area: the White River, Arapaho, Routt, and Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature