Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. All Parties and Persons

• Decision Date: 29 February 1960
• Citation: 53 Cal.2d 692,3 Cal.Rptr. 317,350 P.2d 69
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 350 P.2d 69 IVANHOE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALL PARTIES AND PERSONS, etc., Defendants; Courtney McCracken et al., Respondents; People, Defendant and Appellant. MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; John Humphreys et al., Respondents; People et al., Defendants and Appellants. L. A. 23043. Sac. 6489.

Page 317

3 Cal.Rptr. 317

53 Cal.2d 692, 350 P.2d 69

IVANHOE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALL PARTIES AND PERSONS, etc., Defendants;

Courtney McCracken et al., Respondents; People, Defendant and Appellant.

MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants;

John Humphreys et al., Respondents;

People et al., Defendants and Appellants.

L. A. 23043.

Sac. 6489.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 29, 1960.

Edmund G. Brown and Stanley Mosk, Attys. Gen., B. Abbott Goldberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Adolph Moskovitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. I. Feemster, James R. McBride, Yuba City, 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, ^* Roy A. Gustafson, Dist. Atty., James E. Dixon, Deputy Dist. Atty., Ventura, and McCormick, Moock & McCormick, Visalia, as amici curiae on behalf of appellants.

Harry W. Horton, Reginald L. Knox, Jr., Horton & Knox, Horton, Knox & Carter El Centro, M. A. Bailey, Madera, W. R. Bailey, Visalia, Henry Holsinger, Principal Atty., Division of Water Resources, Gavin M. Craig, Senior Atty., Sacramento, Denslow B. Green, Sherwood Green, Green, Green & Plumley, Green, Green & Bartow, Coffee & Wolfe, Madera, Dowell & Thompson, Virgil C. Dowell, Lindsay, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Herman Phleger, Alvin J. Rockwell and John M. Naff, Jr., San Francisco, for respondents.

Edson Abel, San Francisco, as amicus curiae on behalf of respondents.

PETERS, Justice.

For convenience these two appeals will be disposed of in one opinion

The facts in reference to the Ivanhoe case are as follows: On September 23, 1949, the District, acting under the Irrigation District Federal Cooperation Law (Water Code, §§ 23175 [53 Cal.2d 699] et seq.), entered into a contract with the United States, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, for the delivery of a supply of water to the District for irrigation purposes from the Central Valley Project, and for the construction of a distribution system to make the water available on lands within the District. The validity of the organization of the District is conceded. As required by law, the contract was approved by the California District Securities Commission with reservations (Water Code, §§ 23222 and 24253), and was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of the District's electors (Water Code, § 23220 et seq.). A proceeding was then instituted in the proper Superior Court to have the contract confirmed, which is required by federal law (Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, § 46, 44 Stat. 649, 43 U.S.C.A. § 423e), by section 42 of the contract, and by California law (Water Code, §§ 22670 et seq., 23225).

This proceeding is in rem in nature. In such an action the only issue involved is the validity of the contract.

Courtney McCracken, the owner of 309 irrigable acres within the District, appeared as the only dividual defendant objecting to confirmation. He is a bachelor, so that under the contract he is entitled to have water distributed to only 160 of his acres. He is a nonresident of the District so was unable to participate in the confirmation election held in the District (Water Code, § 23220 et seq.). He opposed confirmation, mainly on the ground that the 160-acre limitation was invalid as to him and to his property.

The United States government has never appeared in the action as a party, but the Regional Counsel and the Assistant Regional Counsel of the Department of the Interior received permission to appear as amici curiae in the trial on the side of those seeking confirmation. Federal counsel not only appeared at and participated in the trial of the action in this capacity, but appeared on the prior appeal in this court, on the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court, and have participated in the proceedings now involved in this court.

Counsel for the Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, the owner of large areas of irrigated and irrigable lands in the San Joaquin Valley in and out of the District appeared as amici curiae in opposition to the confirmation.

The Water Project Authority of the State of California also appeared in the action before judgment, and assumed a neutral attitude so far as the validity of the contract was concerned. It asked for a declaration of the rights of the parties, and further requested that the decree not adjudicate the right or interest in or to water, or water rights, or respecting the regulation or use thereof, under the laws of the state, on the ground such issues were not involved. The attorney for the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Public Works of California appeared as an amicus curiae on behalf of the Water Project Authority.

Other amici curiae have appeared on behalf of both sides of this controversy at various stages of these proceedings.

The trial court denied confirmation of this contract on various grounds, and entered its judgment accordingly. ¹

The Ivanhoe Irrigation District, the State of California and the Water Project Authority of the state appealed. This court, by a four to three vote, affirmed the trial court. Ivanhoe Irrigation district v. All Parties, 47 Cal.2d 597, 306 P.2d 824. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court, and that court reversed this court (Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 78 S.Ct. 1174, 2 L.Ed.2d 1313). ² Pursuant to this reversal, this court recalled the remittiturs, permitted all interested parties and amici curiae to rebrief the problems involved in view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court, and placed the cases on the calendar for oral argument.

The Madera case has had substantially the same history. It involves an appeal by the plaintiff Madera Irrigation District and certain of the defendants from a judgment refusing to confirm a proposed contract between the United States, acting by and through the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, and the Madera Irrigation District. The contracts involved in the Ivanhoe and Madera cases are substantially similar. In its prior opinion (Madera Irrigation District v. All Persons, 47 Cal.2d 681) this court at page 684, 306 P.2d 886, at page 888, discussed the background of the Madera case as follows:

'As in the Ivanhoe contract the United States undertook to deliver water for irrigation purposes from the Central Valley Project to the District and to expend funds for the construction of a distribution system within the District. This proceeding, also an in rem special proceeding to obtain the confirmation of the proposed contract, was brought by the District pursuant to the provisions of sections 22670 et seq. and section 23225 of the Water Code. The federal law, Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, § 46, 44 Stats. 649, 650, 43 U.S.C.A. § 423e, Federal Reclamation Laws Annotated 318-319, and article 36 of the contract require the validity or invalidity thereof to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. The contract in question was entered into on May 14, 1951, by the District acting under the Irrigation District Federal Cooperation Law. Water Code, § 23175 et seq. On the 26th of March, 1951, the California Districts Securities Commission, with reservations, approved the contract, Water Code, §§ 23222, 24253, and the electors of the District subsequently approved it by a vote of 1979 to 755, Water Code, §§ 23220, 23221, 21925-21935. The district commenced this proceeding on the 21st day of May, 1951. Eighty-six landowners within the District, and four landowners outside of the District filed answers in which they opposed the confirmation of the contract. The State of California and the Water Project Authority of the State of California, by and through the Attorney General, filed a joint answer. The state prayed that the contract be validated and a separate prayer recited that the Water Project Authority 'is not taking any position upon the validity of the contract' and requested the court to declare that its decree 'does not purport to be an adjudication of the right or interest of the State of California or its agencies * * * or of the right or interest of the United States or its agencies * * * in or to the water or water rights * * * involved in the Central Valley Project.'

'After the statutory time for filing an answer had expired, leave of the court was granted the State Engineer of the State of California, acting in his capacity as such and ex-officio as Chief of the Division of Water Resources, Department of Public Works, to file a separate answer by counsel for the Division of Water Resources. The State Engineer took no position as to the validity of the contract, stating that his object was to protect the state law relating to water use and control. Regional counsel for the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior were granted leave by the court to appear as amici curiae and as such participated throughout the proceedings in the trial court in support of the confirmation of the contract.' The trial court (the same court as was involved in the Ivanhoe case) entered its judgment denying confirmation for substantially the same reasons it had set forth in the Ivanhoe case. The findings and conclusions in this case also disposed of certain issues not involved in the Ivanhoe case.

In its prior opinion in the Madera case this court also stated (47 Cal.2d at page 685, 306 P.2d at page 889): 'The appellants are the State of California represented by the Attorney General who seeks a reversal of the judgment, the plaintiff District which seeks a reversal, and the State Engineer as Chief of the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Public Works who asserts the invalidity of the contract but contends that the trial court erred...