PEOPLE OF STATE OF CAL., BY AND THROUGH DEPT. OF PW v. 25.09 Acres of Lands
Citation | 329 F. Supp. 230 |
Decision Date | 26 March 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 68-118-J. |
Parties | The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting BY AND THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Plaintiff, v. 25.09 ACRES OF LANDS, MORE OR LESS, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Rypinski, Hollingsworth, Peterson & Endeman, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff.
Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., and Raymond F. Zvetina and Keith E. McWilliams, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for the United States.
The State of California has condemned lands for highway purposes, including 25.09 acres on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, located in Imperial County, California. The land was allotted in severalty to six named defendants and is held in trust by the defendant United States. The land is subject to assessment for water services from facilities of the Yuma Project, a federal reclamation project. The United States claims a compensable interest by reason of its right to assess an annual operation and maintenance charge against all irrigable lands entitled to water service from this project. An interlocutory judgment has been entered granting awards to the owners and parties in interest, except for this claim of the United States.
On December 4, 1970 a pretrial order was entered, which recites that no issues of fact remain for determination and that the "following issues of law, and no others, remain to be litigated upon the trial:
Supplementing the formal pretrial order, a memorandum of the United States sets forth the statutory background for the allotment of irrigable lands within the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and for the development of land in the reservation through irrigation. The memorandum describes in more detail the construction of the Yuma project and the assessments for construction costs and current operation and maintenance charges. In particular, operation and maintenance charges against the Indian lands are made
The memorandum continues in part:
The contentions of the United States under this state of facts are summarized as follows:
Plaintiff is "in substantial agreement" with defendant's statement of facts, but points out that
Neither party has cited nor has the court found any case precisely in point. Defendant United States relies primarily on Adaman Mutual Water Company v. United States, 9 Cir. 1960, 278 F.2d 842. In that case land in an agricultural development project was supplied with irrigation water by a nonprofit water company. The Government condemned 8.3 per cent of the land within the project. The court held that the duty to pay assessments was "an equitable servitude or restrictive covenant binding upon any once-cultivated segment of Project land serviced" by the water company;1 that the company "has lost the benefit derived from this servitude, and the loss is compensable, for the Government has destroyed an intangible right directly connected with the physical substance of the land condemned"; and that the diminution of the water company's assessment base accordingly constituted the taking of a compensable interest under the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiff contends that the instant case is "directly opposite to the situation" in Adaman for two reasons: (1) Adaman "was dealing with compensability of an equitable servitude under Arizona law", while in California "equitable servitudes are not compensable in eminent domain proceedings"; and (2) "In Adaman, the court was dealing with a private water company who did not have the power to tax", whereas in this case, "the Federal Government does have the power to tax."
Defendant in turn argues that the law of California is in no way inconsistent with the holding in Adaman, and that the term "taxation" does not include "assessments" for irrigation districts and similar improvements.
Before proceeding with the contentions of the parties it should be noted that the irrigation project was created under federal and not state law. The lands taken are located on an Indian Reservation. The defendant United States has a lien under federal law for the operation and maintenance charges, which the parties recognize in the pretrial order as an "affirmative obligation running with the land." In addition, there are no other lands which may be added to the project, and the operation and maintenance charges will not be lessened by reason of the taking. Accordingly the burden of either the United States or the Indian landowners will be increased if no compensation is allowed.
Both parties recognize that the determination of this case depends upon whether Adaman is applicable. In holding that the duty to pay assessments was an equitable servitude and the resulting loss to the water company was compensable, the court said in Adaman:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Chicago v. Prologis
...condemned" land and therefore passed to the government with the fee. Florea, 68 F.Supp. at 375. The court in People ex rel. v. 25.09 Acres of Lands, 329 F.Supp. 230 (S.D.Cal.1971), reached a similar conclusion: there, the federal government operated an irrigation project located within the ......
-
United States v. 129.4 Acres of Land, More or Less, CIV 75-166 PHX-CAM.
...the money as the trustee for the remaining landowners. See Adaman, supra, 278 F.2d at 847, and The People of the State of California v. 25.09 Acres of Lands, 329 F.Supp. 230 at 239 (S.D.Cal.1971). Secondly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Columbia Irrigation District v. United States,......
-
U.S. v. 129.4 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Yuma County, State of Ariz., 76-3538
...note that Adaman has been interpreted in two district court opinions in this circuit prior to this case, People of State of California v. 25.09 Acres, 329 F.Supp. 230 (S.D.Cal.1971) and United States v. Howell, 251 F.Supp. 787 (D.Or.1965). Those cases presented essentially the same issue an......