Albonico v. Madera Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 29 February 1960
• Citation: 3 Cal.Rptr. 343,53 Cal.2d 735
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 350 P.2d 95 Phillip ALBONICO et al., Respondents, v. MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT (a Corporation) et al., Appellants. Sac. 6460.

Page 343

3 Cal.Rptr. 343

53 Cal.2d 735, 350 P.2d 95

Phillip ALBONICO et al., Respondents, v. MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.

Sac. 6460.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 29, 1960.

David E. Peckinpah, Denver, C. Peckinpah, Fresno, Harold M. Child, Selma, L. N. Barber, for appellants.

J. Lee Rankin, U. S. Sol. Gen., Washington, D. C., Perry W. Morton, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., David R. Warner and Roger P. Marquis, Attys., Dept. of Justice, ^* Washington, D. C., Edmund G. Brown and Stanley Mosk, Attys. Gen., B. Abbott Goldberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Adolph Moskovitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., and McCormick, Moock & McCormick, Visalia, as amici curiae on behalf of appellants.

Green, Green, Plumley & Kuney, Denslow B. Green, Madera, Kenneth A. Kuney, Tulare, Sherwood Green, Green, Green & Bartow, Madera, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Herman Phleger, Alvin J. Rockwell and John M. Naff, Jr., San Francisco, for respondents.

Harry W. Horton, Reginald L. Knox, Jr., Horton & Knox, El Centro, W. R. Bailey, Visalia, Frank E. Jenney, Los Angeles, Ronald B. Harris, Fresno, P. J. Minasian, Oroville, Martin McDonough, Sacramento, amici curiae on behalf of respondents.

PETERS, Justice.

This case involves the same basic issue as to the validity of the contract between the Madera Irrigation District and the United States as was involved in the Madera case, Cal., 3 Cal.Rptr. 317. As far as that issue is concerned, the law stated in that case, and in the two companion cases, is controlling. On the authority and for the reasons set forth in those cases it must be held that the contract between the United States and the Madera Irrigation District is valid and enforceable. In addition to that point, this case also involves another issue which must be passed upon.

This is an appeal by the District from a judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the Albonicos, husband and wife, in a proceeding for a writ of mandate to compel the District to vacate its resolution denying the exclusion from the District of petitioners' lands in excess of 320 acres. Exclusion was sought on the ground that such excess lands would not be benefited by the operations of the District (Water Code, §§ 26728, 26729; Code Civ.Proc., § 1085).

The Albonicos own 1,259 acres of land within the boundaries of the District. They first petitioned the Board of Directors of the District to exclude all of their lands from the District. At the hearing before the Board the Albonicos agreed that the 320 acres which could be served under the contract between the District and the United States need not be excluded, byt they did request that all of their lands in excess of 320 acres be excluded. At this hearing the Albonicos presented some evidence, the nature of which will hereafter be set forth, to the effect that their excess lands would not be benefited. After this hearing, which included an inspection of the premises by the Board, the Board found that the excess lands would be benefited, and denied the petition for exclusion. The Albonicos then petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of mandate to review this determination and to compel the Board to exclude their excess lands.

The Superior Court made findings to the effect that the entire operations of the District in relation to the lands of petitioners would be pursuant to the contract between the United States and the District under which water would not be delivered to petitioners' excess lands unless they agreed to sell such lands as provided in the contract; that 'except as to 320 acres thereof, the said lands of the petitioners sought to be excluded would not be benefited by the operations of the Madera Irrigation District'; that 'no evidence was introduced' tending to show that such lands would be benefited, and that at the hearing before the Board prior to its resolution denying the petition for exclusion there 'was no evidence * * * to support (its) finding of fact that lands of the petitioners would be benefited by the operations' of the District.

The trial court issued a writ of mandate with directions in the alternative, that (1) if the excess land provisions of the contracts with the United States are held to be invalid, the excess lands of petitioners should not be excluded; (2) but, if the excess land limitations of the federal contract are held to be valid, then petitioners are entitled to have their lands in excess of 320 acres excluded from the boundaries of the District.

On appeal to this court, in the prior opinion of this court (Albonico v. Madera Irr. Dist., 47 Cal.2d 695, 306 P.2d 894) because of its determination in the Ivanhoe (Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. All Parties, 47 Cal.2d 597, 306 P.2d 824) and Madera (Madera Irrigation District v. All Persons, 47 Cal.2d 681, 306 P.2d 886) cases this court held that the limitations of the contract were invalid and that all of petitioners' lands were entitled to water. The judgment of the trial court was modified 'by striking therefrom the first alternative by which the petitioners' land might be conditionally excluded and by affirming the second alternative pursuant to which the lands of the petitioners are entitled to their proportionate water supply' (Albonico v. Madera Irr. Dist., 47 Cal.2d 695, 698, 306 P.2d 894, 896).

The judgment of this court in this case was reversed by the United States Supreme Court together with the judgments in the three companion cases. Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 300, 78 S.Ct. 1174, 2 L.Ed.2d 1313. Pursuant to the remand of the high court the remittitur was recalled, counsel permitted to rebrief all issues, the case was argued, and is now once again before us for decision.

Inasmuch as the contract involved has been held to be valid, we are now faced with the necessity of determining the question as to whether or not the Superior Court properly overruled the determination of the Board of Directors of the District that all of the lands of petitioners will be benefited by the project.

In our opinion the Superior Court exceeded its jurisdiction in finding, contrary to the finding of the Board, that the excess lands of petitioners would not be benefited by the operations of the District. This is a mandamus proceeding aimed at reviewing the propriety of the action of a local administrative board. Mandamus is, of course, the appropriate remedy to test the proper exercise of the discretion vested in such a local board. But on such a review the reviewing court has no power to exercise an independent judgment on the facts. The Superior Court's power of review in such cases is limited to determining whether there was substantial evidence before the board to support its decision. Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Kings County Water Dist., 47 Cal.2d 140, 302 P.2d 1; Hobe v Madera Irrigation Dist., 128 Cal.App.2d 9, 16, 274 P.2d 874. It is improper for the court to have a trial de novo or to make its own findings on the evidence. Cf. Fascination, Inc. v. Hoover, 39 Cal.2d 260, 264, 268, 246 P.2d 656.

The Water Code provides for a procedure whereby landowners may petition the Board for exclusion of all or portions of their lands from irrigation districts. A hearing before the Board is provided in the statute (Water Code, § 26725). Discretion is conferred on the Board by the statute and it is provided that:

Section 26728: 'Upon the hearing of an exclusion petition the board shall order that the petition be denied:

'(a) Entirely when no evidence in support of the petition is introduced.

'(b) As to any land described in the petition as to which the evidence introduced fails to sustain the petition.

'(c) As to any land described in the petition which the board deems it not for the best interests of the district to exclude except when the board judges that the land wll not be benefited by the operations of the district.'

Section 26729 provides that: 'The board after the hearing of any exclusion petition shall order the exclusion of all or any part of the land described in it when as to the land to be excluded either:

'(a) The board judges that the land will not be benefited by the operations of the district.

'(b) * * * (exclusion for the best interests of district).'

Under these sections the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish his right to exclusion of his lands, that is, he must prove that his lands will not be benefited. The question of benefit, or lack thereof, is obviously one of fact for the Board. The Board has found that fact. The only question presented is whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in making that finding.

At the hearing the Albonicos presented some evidence to the effect that their excess lands would not be benefited under the contract with the United States. Their counsel, sworn as a witness, introduced and explained a chart showing the classification of the various parcels belonging to the Albonicos as to their suitability of farming. Other witnesses testified as to the character of the parcels, as to whether they were irrigable, and as to the utilization of pumps in certain areas. Counsel for the Albonicos then presented a map entitled 'State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, Lines of Equal Water Elevation in Wells in the Upper San Joaquin Valley in the Fall of 1949.' Albonicos' counsel then stated, apparently as a witness, that...