People of the State of California v. United States

Decision Date30 March 1956
Docket NumberNo. 14049.,14049.
PartiesPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. SANTA MARGARITA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., George G. Grover, Dep. Atty. Gen., Henry Holsinger, Principal Attorney, Division of Water Resources, Gavin M. Craig, Senior Attorney, Division of Water Resources, State of California, Sacramento, Cal., for appellant, State of California.

W. B. Dennis, for Santa Margarita Mut. Water Co., Fallbrook, Cal.

J. Lee Rankin, Asst. Atty. Gen., William H. Veeder, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Swing, Scharnikow & Staniforth, Phil D. Swing, San Diego, Cal., for Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., amicus curiae.

Before STEPHENS, ORR and FEE, Circuit Judges.

JAMES ALGER FEE, Circuit Judge.

The United States brought an action against some three thousand (3,000) defendants to quiet title to water rights claimed to be appurtenant to lands acquired in 1941-1943 and used for various purposes of the army and navy and which, collectively, with additions from the public domain, will be referred to as "Pendleton."

The history of this litigation appears in United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., D. C., 101 F.Supp. 298, 108 F.Supp. 72, 109 F.Supp. 28 and 110 F. Supp. 767.

The State of California was served as a defendant and appeared as intervenor.

On motion of the government, separate trial was held as to Santa Margarita1 and People of the State of California. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the government and against these two, the appellants, Santa Margarita and the State alone, from which these appeals are taken.

The judgment which was rendered contained recitals of certain declarations purporting to be based upon findings of fact, and adjudged that the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company and the State of California, and each of them, "are forever barred from any and all claim of right, title or interest in and to those rights to the use of water"2 which the court found vested in the United States. The judgment was made final July 1, 1953.

During the years 1941, 1942 and 1943, the United States, by three separate transactions, acquired by condemnation and purchase most of the Rancho Santa Margarita3 and by executive order added thereto from the adjoining public domain 1574.61 acres more and established thereon the United States Naval Ammunition Depot at Fallbrook, the United States Naval Hospital and Camp Joseph H. Pendleton. All of this land, with the exception of the lands added from the public domain, had been in private ownership long before California joined the Union. This military reservation as a whole has an area of 135,000 acres. The Santa Margarita River is a coastal stream which drains a watershed in San Diego and Riverside Counties and flows through Pendleton for 21 miles and thereupon enters the ocean.

The United States brought into the trial court all of the other claimants of the river system, praying that its title to water right as the landowner at the mouth be quieted against each and all. By final judgment, the District Court is empowered to grant complete relief as to all claimants and the United States, adjudicate the water rights, set up control systems and require physical solutions of specific problems, equitably charging the expense thereof to the claimant of surplus so created.4

The cardinal fact in the case is that in 1941 the State of California ceded to the United States general sovereignty over the territory, land and water, embraced in the enclave.

Among the factors extraneous to the merits, which seem to have affected the trial of this case, was the standing and good faith of Santa Margarita and its supporters. This Court has spoken as to the efforts of interested parties to prevent the trial of this case by the able District Judge.5 There also was improper interference legislatively to prevent a hearing in one of the courts of the nation. The trial court found that Santa Margarita had "not made any diversion" and the State had issued no permits for diversion or storage. In other words, here was a paper application.

It can apparently be gleaned from the record that this stream and its tributaries are upon lands over which the United States did not have sovereignty before the cession by the State of California. None of these creeks are navigable. There is no problem of the use of these waters for power or navigation. Flood control is necessary only to conserve water and create a surplus. There are thus no complicating factors. Before the acquisition by the government, the problem was one of settlement of rights of individual landowners under California law.

The law of California, by stipulation here and by the federal Constitution, controls the water rights within its boundaries. The most strict application of the doctrine of riparian rights adapted from the common law between proprietors on a stream, both as to normal flow and flood waters, was enforced by the courts of the state. Even the constitutional amendment6 of the fundamental law of the state, although limiting the scope of applicability of the established doctrine by the concept of beneficial use, is given close scrutiny in order not to interfere with vested rights.

Here the United States "claims only such rights to the use of water as it acquired when it purchased Rancho Santa Margarita, together with any rights which it may have gained by prescription or use or both since" that time. Inasmuch as the rights at the date of acquisition depend upon the law of the state, this Court defers to the interpretation of the able trial judge, himself a lawyer of the state of long standing, acquainted with the imponderables and implications inherent in the pronouncement of the courts of the state. This Court will not reject any such interpretation unless convinced that it be manifestly contrary to the holdings of the local tribunals.7

On the other hand, decision of problems of national law and process and procedure of federal courts are familiar ground to the judges of this Court. It is incumbent upon federal appellate judges also to maintain the delicate balance between the sharers of dual sovereignty in this area, the United States of America and the State of California. The problem has intriguing scholastic aspects. But it is earthily practical. These are therein deep rooted implications of the structure of government.

If the partial judgment in this case had only gone to the extent of declaring under the laws of California one who has filed an application for appropriation of water, which had not been acted upon by the state authorities and under which no diversion had been made, acquired no privileges which should conflict with the vested real property rights of riparian owners and established appropriators, no appeal would probably have been taken. But this judgment, above summarized, apparently cuts off (a) the right of the State of California, as sovereign over the landowners and appropriators on the watershed, other than the federal government, to resolve the water rights outside the enclave between such parties and also the rights of the State of California, as landowner and proprietor of water rights on parcels in the watershed above the enclave; (b) the right of Santa Margarita, by perfecting its application, to rank ahead of subsequent applicants for appropriations, including the Navy, and to utilize surplus water, if any, which developed now or in the future. And finally (c) in a suit where there are many other parties, the partial judgment attempts to fix positive rights of ownership of water in the government "by prescription" or "use" which rights would not only be valid against the State of California and Santa Margarita, but against all the other litigants and the world.

The government apparently desired to try Santa Margarita because it was obviously in the weakest position of any prospective user on the stream. This was, of course, perfectly proper, and this Court has affirmed the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion.8 But no license was accorded thereby to enter judgment in such sweeping terms. It is demonstrable that some of the declarations, conclusions and findings are improper as to each, Santa Margarita and the State of California. If Santa Margarita had any right, even inchoate, under the laws of California, then that right, whatever its value, must be protected. The State of California should not be denied the power of granting a permit to Santa Margarita valid against all private landowners. It would, of course, only be valid for surplus waters, if any, now or in the future. Diversion of water not surplus by an appropriator is a trespass. While there might be a final judgment in this case declaring the future needs and settlements of the United States, such a judgment should not cut off rights to use the water which is presently surplus, if any.

These errors in the breadth of the partial judgment may have been caused by a misconception of (a) "military necessity," (b) "sovereign rights" of the United States, or (c) the effect of a judgment9 in the state court between Rancho and Vail10 and a stipulation between the government attorneys and Vail.

One factor is handled only to be immediately discarded. The government brief blares out like a trumpet the "military necessity" in the use of Pendleton against the "aggressors." "It was on the postulate that the United States of America could utilize water in the State of California successfully to wage war that the case was tried." This reasoning seems to have had effect on the findings of the trial court. The crisis existing when this land was acquired still exists. It may exist beyond the lives of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial IrrIGAtion Dist.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1985
    ...go to waste. This characterization applies to flood waters as well as to the normal flow.' " (Quoting People of the State of California v. United States (9th Cir.1956) 235 F.2d 647, 663.) Since the District has a duty to avoid wasting water and to prevent flooding, then it follows an agreem......
  • Water of Hallett Creek Stream System, In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1988
    ... ... STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al., Petitioners and lants, ... UNITED STATES of America, Claimant and Respondent; ... Sierra ... S.F. 25133 ... Supreme Court of California ... Feb. 18, 1988 ... Rehearing Denied March 16, 1988 ... (See People v. Shirokow, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 306-307, 162 Cal.Rptr ... ...
  • Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1985
    ...go to waste. This characterization applies to flood waters as well as to the normal flow.' " (Quoting People of the State of California v. United States (9th Cir.1956) 235 F.2d 647, 663.) Since the District has a duty to avoid wasting water and to prevent flooding, then it follows an agreem......
  • Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 23, 2021
    ...enclave merely because it is adjacent to or near the enclave or flows into or out of it. See, e.g. , People of the State of California v. U.S. , 235 F.2d 647, 656 (9th Cir. 1956) (the federal government, "as regards all claimants to water outside the enclave, is not in the position of sover......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Review of Unclear State Law in the Ninth Circuit After in Re Mclinn
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 9-02, December 1985
    • Invalid date
    ...construction of state law will be accepted on review unless it is 'clearly wrong' or 'clearly erroneous'."); California v. United States, 235 F.2d 647, 654 (9th Cir. 1956) ("This Court defers to the interpretation of the able trial judge, himself a lawyer of the state of long standing, acqu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT