U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— APPROPRIATION OF WATERS; RESERVOIR SITES

43 U.S.C. § 666

Suits for adjudication of water rights

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Joinder of United States as defendant; costs

Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit.

(b) Service of summons

Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative.

(c) Joinder in suits involving use of interstate streams by State

Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream.

(July 10, 1952, ch. 651, title II, § 208(a)–(c), 66 Stat. 560.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section is comprised of subsections (a) to (c) of section 208 of act July 10, 1952. Subsection (d) of section 208 is omitted as it referred to the limitation on the use of any appropriation in act July 10, 1952 to prepare or prosecute the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of California, by the United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Corporation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 233 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976) scotus · cites it 6× “560 , 43 U. S. C. § 666 , provides that "consent is hereby given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such *803 rights, where it appears…”
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983) scotus · cites it 2× “560 , 43 U. S. C. § 666 , on the existence and exercise of federal-court jurisdiction to adjudicate federal water rights, 28 U.”
Rank v. (Krug) United States (1956) casd · cites it 16× “2d 818 , as the result of an order dated January 30, 1954, denying a motion to dismiss the United States as a party after an order which joined the United States as a party defendant under the Act of July 10,1952, 43 U.S.C.A. § 666 . 17 No writs were issued in either proceeding.”
Idaho Dept. of Water Resources v. United States (1992) idaho · cites it 26× “The United States contends that the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 , does not waive sovereign immunity from the payment of filing fees.”
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States of America, State of New Mexico, Ex Rel. S. E. Reynolds, State Engineer, Amicus (1979) ca10 · cites it 9× “In that action, the United States of America was named as a party defendant pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C.A. § 666 (a), in its own behalf and on behalf of its wards, to-wit, three Indian tribes, including the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, hereinafter referred to as…”
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch (2007) mont · cites it 8× “[1] The Tribes also argue that change of use proceedings are improper piecemeal adjudications prohibited by the McCarran Amendment, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 666 , and that they should not have to intervene in multiple change of use proceedings — which are separate from and in…”
Wagoner County Rural Water District No. 2 v. Grand River Dam Authority (2009) ca10 · cites it 3× “They assert that GRDA’s litigation of the takings case amounted to a waiver of immunity that extends to the current suit, and that the United States and the U.”
In Re Application for Water Rights of US (2004) colo · cites it 5× “The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (2004), allows a party to involuntarily *1075 join the United States as a necessary party in a comprehensive state water court adjudication.”
United States v. IDAHO Ex Rel. DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (1993) scotus · cites it 4× “560 , 43 U. S. C. § 666 (a). This case arises from Idaho's joinder of the United States in a suit for the adjudication of water rights in the Snake River.”
United States v. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners (1982) colo · cites it 5× “Quantification of Decreed Rights The water court held that the federal government was required by state law, by the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1976), and by its own consent to quantify its reserved rights.”
Dugan v. Rank (1963) scotus · cites it 3× “560 , 43 U. S. C. § 666 , infra, n. 5. Friant Dam has, however, been operated by the United States without judicial interference since June 30, 1953.”
Avondale Irrigation District v. North Idaho Properties, Inc. (1978) idaho · cites it 8× “VI Assuming arguendo that on remand in Soderman II the United States is able to prove that a non-consumptive right to the entire natural flow is necessary for these two purposes, the question whether the entire *19 natural flow is a sufficient quantification of that right will…”
Show all 233 citing cases →
— 43 U.S.C. § 666(a) — 2 cases
United States v. IDAHO Ex Rel. DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (1993) scotus “560 , 43 U. S. C. § 666 (a). This case arises from Idaho's joinder of the United States in a suit for the adjudication of water rights in the Snake River.”
Yurok Tribe v. Klamath Water Users Association (2026) ca9
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.