Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutemotionleasemotion to dismisswater rightssovereign immunity
contractdefendantjurisdictionstatutemotionmotion to dismisssovereign immunity

Related Cases

Tembec, Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 29 C.I.T. 656, 2005 WL 1592958, 27 ITRD 1703
View Case »
Mobil Oil Corp. v. E.P.A., 871 F.2d 149, 29 ERC 1385, 276 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 57 USLW 2643, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,847
View Case »
Public Citizen v. U.S. Trade Representative, 5 F.3d 549, 37 ERC 1300, 15 ITRD 1713, 303 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 62 USLW 2192, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,471
View Case »
Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921, 46 ERC 1577, 66 USLW 4376, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,119, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3733, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5150, 98 CJ C.A.R. 2473, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 525
View Case »
Ross v. Federal Highway Admin., 162 F.3d 1046, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,342, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 96
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State of Wyo. v. U.S., 933 F.Supp. 1030

Facts

The Goshen Irrigation District and the Casper–Alcova Irrigation District entered into a 1989 agreement for the loan of 25,000 acre-feet of water from the Kendrick Project to alleviate water shortages. The Bureau of Reclamation, which had a contract with Casper–Alcova, refused to release the water to Goshen without a direct contract with them. Despite a state engineer's order to release the water, the Bureau maintained its position, leading to the lawsuit for declaratory relief by Goshen and the State of Wyoming.

The Bureau of Reclamation has contracted with Casper–Alcova to maintain and control water distribution to land in the Kendrick Project, a federal reclamation project planned, constructed, and operated in accordance with Wyoming law and the Reclamation Act of 1902.

Issue

Did the McCarran Amendment or the Reclamation Reform Act provide a waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow the State of Wyoming and the Goshen Irrigation District to sue the United States and the Bureau of Reclamation?

The defendants contend this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to reach the merits of the State of Wyoming's and the Goshen Irrigation District's (hereafter “Goshen”) claims in the amended complaint because the defendants have not waived sovereign immunity.

Rule

Sovereign immunity bars suits against the federal government unless there is an unequivocal waiver of that immunity by Congress. The McCarran Amendment and the Reclamation Reform Act must be interpreted strictly to determine if they provide such a waiver.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits by states and state agencies against the federal government, unless it has consented to be sued.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the claims made by Goshen and the State of Wyoming constituted claims against the sovereign. It concluded that the statutes cited did not provide an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity, as the claims did not involve a general adjudication of water rights as required by the McCarran Amendment. The court emphasized that the absence of a contract between the Bureau and Goshen further complicated the claims.

The court concludes that neither of the two statutes cited by Goshen and the State of Wyoming in the amended complaint and in the opposition to the motion to dismiss, the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, and the Reclamation Reform Act, 43 U.S.C. § 390uu, amount to an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is therefore GRANTED.

Who won?

United States and Bureau of Reclamation prevailed because the court found that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity.

The court has no difficulty concluding Goshen's and the State of Wyoming's claims, as they relate to each of the defendants, amount to claims against the sovereign.

You must be