Rank v. (Krug) United States, No. 685-ND.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California) |
| Writing for the Court | Claude L. Rowe and Christian M. Ozias, Fresno, Cal., for City of Fresno |
| Citation | 142 F. Supp. 1 |
| Parties | Everett G. RANK et al., Plaintiffs, v. (KRUG) UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Complainant in Intervention, v. Everett G. RANK et al., Defendants in Intervention. The CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation, Complainant in Intervention, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants in Intervention. TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Complainant in Intervention, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants in Intervention. CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. A. D. EDMONSTON, as State Engineer of the State of California, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 685-ND. |
142 F. Supp. 1
Everett G. RANK et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
(KRUG) UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Complainant in Intervention,
v.
Everett G. RANK et al., Defendants in Intervention.
The CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation, Complainant in Intervention,
v.
UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants in Intervention.
TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Public Corporation, Complainant in Intervention,
v.
UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants in Intervention.
CITY OF FRESNO, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Petitioners,
v.
A. D. EDMONSTON, as State Engineer of the State of California, etc., et al., Respondents.
No. 685-ND.
United States District Court S. D. California, Northern Division.
February 7, 1956.
Supplemental Memorandum July 11, 1956.
Claude L. Rowe and Christian M. Ozias, Fresno, Cal., for City of Fresno.
Maddox & Abercrombie, James K. Abercrombie, Erling H. Kloster, Visalia, Cal., for various Irr. Dists.
LeRoy McCormick and John R. Locke, Jr., of Visalia, Cal., for various Irr. Dists.
Henry & Kuney, of Tulare, Cal., for various Irr. Dists.
E. I. Feenister, Lindsay, Cal., for various Irr. Dists.
Green, Green & Plumley, Denslow Green, Madera, Cal., for Chowchilla Water Dist.
David E. Peckinpah, Fresno, Cal., and Harold M. Child, Selma, Cal., for Madera Irr. Dist.
J. O. Reavis, Delano, Cal., for Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility Dist.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., B. Abbott Goldberg, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of California, plaintiff in intervention.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., B. Abbott Goldberg, Deputy Atty. Gen., Henry Holsinger, Principal Atty., Division of Water Resources, State of California, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent State Officials in Ancillary Proceedings.
J. Lee Rankin, Asst. Atty. Gen., William H. Veeder, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for defendant officials and employees of the Bureau of Reclamation.
No appearance for United States.
Edson Abel, San Francisco, Cal., as amicus curiae in behalf of California Farm Bureau Federation.
INDEX BY TOPICS
Page
I. Preliminary statement .......................................... 36
II. General geographical & physical features ....................... 39
III. History of litigation .......................................... 49
IV. The parties .................................................... 53
V. The pleadings .................................................. 54
VI. Jurisdiction of (1) subject matter
(2) defendant officials
(3) defendant districts ........................ 62
VII. Jurisdiction of the State of California ........................ 66
VIII. Jurisdiction of the United States .............................. 69
IX. Default against United States .................................. 85
X. Eminent domain ................................................. 89
XI. Water rights under California law — general .............. 104
XII. California water rights of plaintiffs .......................... 115
XIII. California water rights of defendants .......................... 116
(a) Purchase & exchange contracts ............................ 117
(b) Change of point of diversion ............................. 117
(c) Applications to appropriate held by the United States .... 121
(d) Prescription ............................................. 125
(e) Laches ................................................... 128
(f) Estoppel ................................................. 128
(g) Public use ............................................... 130
XIV. Watershed and county of origin statutes ........................ 149
XV. Class action ................................................... 154
XVI. Election of remedies — Tucker Act ........................ 159
XVII. Inadequacy of remedy at law .................................... 160
XVIII. Physical solution & form of judgment ........................... 161
XIX. Injunctive relief against United States ........................ 175
XX. Tranquillity Irrigation District ............................... 176
XXI. City of Fresno ................................................. 178
(a) Complaint in intervention ................................. 178
(b) Ancillary proceedings ..................................... 178
HALL, District Judge.
I.
Preliminary Statement.
This is a water rights case.
One phase or another of it has been considered in five reported opinions, viz.: Rank v. Krug, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 773, United States v. United States District Court, etc., 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 303, State of California v. United States District Court, etc., 9 Cir., 213 F.2d 818, Rank v. United States, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 310, and City of Fresno v. Edmonston, D.C., 131 F.Supp. 421.
In view of the number of cases considered by the court in this opinion, and the fact that many of them are cited to several propositions, and to alleviate the frustrating use of the conventional "supra" and "post," an alphabetical index of cases is attached as Appendix "A," page 187.
This opinion is long. There is repetition in it. But these things are necessitated in order to have a proper understanding of the numerous legal and factual matters involved, many of which are complex, and several are important questions of first impression.
In view of the contentions made by some of the defendants at various times throughout the trial and related proceedings, it is well to state at the outset, as a reminder to the parties that this court has neither the desire nor the power to question the wisdom of any of the applicable Acts of Congress or of the laws of the State of California relating to the Central Valley plan or project or any unit of it, and that this suit is but an invocation of the powers confided by the Constitution and laws to the judicial department of the government to interpret and apply the applicable law to the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. Such relief in the form of a judgment as may be found necessary is but the usual exercise of the judicial power, though it may thereby restrict the conduct of the government and its officers to that which is judicially determined to be lawful and within its or their respective powers. If government officials were the sole judges of their powers and their conduct, then the courts would not be necessary.
This is not a suit wherein the plaintiffs seek to establish for each of them their separate rights inter sese to a given quantity of water as between themselves or as against one another, but it is a suit to establish a common right to a common source of water. It is a type of suit familiar, for many years, to the arid West wherein parties seek the adjudication and enforcement by a court of equity of claimed common rights to the use of water, which rights are asserted to be interfered with or taken by the acts of the defendants contrary to applicable laws.
It is impossible to make any short and comprehensive statement of the issues. They will be dealt with in detail hereinafter.
Stated as simply as possible, the controversy may be described as follows: The plaintiffs do not seek to prevent the construction or operation of the Central Valley Plan or any unit or project thereof, but contend that the lawful operation of the Plan and units involved compels recognition and enforcement of their rights to water, as tested by applicable Federal and California laws. The defendants at one stage or another have recognized that the plaintiffs do have rights to water. The dispute throughout the trial has largely been over the extent and enforceability of those rights, the area having the San Joaquin river as its common source, the quantity of water required to fulfill those rights, and the most reasonable and economic method of doing so.
The plaintiffs and their class are riparian and overlying owners of land along the San Joaquin river and on its alluvial cone, below Friant dam and above Mendota Pool, 59 miles below Friant. They formerly had the full flow of the river in its natural channel to satisfy their direct and underground supply.
The government (as that term is used, it applies to the Bureau officials and the United States unless it otherwise appears in the context of the opinion hereinafter) by its submitted plan of physical solution proposes to release only a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, No. 1247-SD.
...also is in the case. It has not been briefed and must await the trial. Judge Hall in Rank v. (Krug) United States, D.C.So.Cal.1956, 142 F.Supp. 1, at page 106, states in footnote "Neither the Constitutional amendment nor subsequent cases have changed the doctrine that the full natural or 16......
-
Westland Water Dist. v. U.S., No. CVF945217 OWWDLB.
...Contract, the Exchange Contractors no longer hold land that borders a "natural" watercourse. See Doc. 287 at 29:5-14. Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.Cal.1956), facially supports this conclusion. [W]hen a change in the point of diversion of water is made, or attempted to be made, to land o......
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, No. CV-F-94-5217 OWW.
...only to the reasonable use of water. Cal. Const.Art. 10, § 2. The reasonableness of the use of water is a question of fact. Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 111 (S.D.Cal.1956), aff'd in part, 293 F.2d 340 (9th Cir.1961), aff'd in part, 372 U.S. 627, 83 S.Ct. 996, 10 L.Ed.2d 28 The focus of this......
-
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
...the holder of a junior right provides [14 Cal.3d 295] a substitute supply for the holder of the senior right (Rank v. Krug (S.D.Cal.1956) 142 F.Supp. 1, 164--165, mod. and affd. 9 Cir., 293 F.2d 340, 9 Cir., 307 F.2d 96, revd. on other grounds, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15) but......
-
United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, No. 1247-SD.
...also is in the case. It has not been briefed and must await the trial. Judge Hall in Rank v. (Krug) United States, D.C.So.Cal.1956, 142 F.Supp. 1, at page 106, states in footnote "Neither the Constitutional amendment nor subsequent cases have changed the doctrine that the full natural ......
-
Westland Water Dist. v. U.S., No. CVF945217 OWWDLB.
...the Exchange Contractors no longer hold land that borders a "natural" watercourse. See Doc. 287 at 29:5-14. Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.Cal.1956), facially supports this conclusion. [W]hen a change in the point of diversion of water is made, or attempted to be made, to land o......
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, No. CV-F-94-5217 OWW.
...only to the reasonable use of water. Cal. Const.Art. 10, § 2. The reasonableness of the use of water is a question of fact. Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 111 (S.D.Cal.1956), aff'd in part, 293 F.2d 340 (9th Cir.1961), aff'd in part, 372 U.S. 627, 83 S.Ct. 996, 10 L.Ed.2d 28 The focus of this......
-
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
...the holder of a junior right provides [14 Cal.3d 295] a substitute supply for the holder of the senior right (Rank v. Krug (S.D.Cal.1956) 142 F.Supp. 1, 164--165, mod. and affd. 9 Cir., 293 F.2d 340, 9 Cir., 307 F.2d 96, revd. on other grounds, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15) but......