Rank v. (Krug) United States

Citation142 F. Supp. 1
Decision Date11 July 1956
Docket NumberNo. 685-ND.,685-ND.
PartiesEverett 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.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Claude L. Rowe, Fresno, Cal., for plaintiffs, and for Tranquillity Irr. Dist. plaintiffs in intervention.

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 average annual flow for the period 1897-1944 was 1,797,260 acre-feet,1 and the average flow was at the rate of 2,463 second-feet2 measured at Friant.

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 sufficient amount of water into the natural channel of the river as will produce a flow of five second-feet past the lowest downstream lands (in the vicinity of Gravelly Ford, 36 plus miles downstream from Friant.).

While the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • In re Pitts
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 9 de setembro de 1999
    ...232 U.S. 627, 34 S.Ct. 461, 58 L.Ed. 763 (1914); Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 2 S.Ct. 878, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883); Rank v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 1, 67 (S.D.Cal.1956).11 In fact, the Eleventh Amendment is not actually applicable in this situation because the Eleventh Amendment only appl......
  • City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 12 de maio de 1975
    ...solution by which the holder of a junior right provides 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) b......
  • In re Green River Drainage Area
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • 7 de dezembro de 1956
    ...818, its construction was not deemed called for in the denial of writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Rank v. (Krug) United States, D.C.S.D.Cal.N.D.1956, 142 F.Supp. 1 involved the same proceeding on the merits. This was an exceedingly extended and complicated case. Much in Judge ......
  • United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 8 de agosto de 1958
    ...Water This problem 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 146 No. 6, August 1998
    • 1 de agosto de 1998
    ...of the binding effect which he attributes to each classification" (footnotes omitted)). (410) See, e.g., Rank v. (Krug) United States, 142 F. Supp. 1, 154-55 n.93 (S.D. Cal. 1956) (stating that the true test of whether res judicata applies to absent parties would be whether or not they were......
4 provisions
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings Andmotions
    • 1 de janeiro de 2019
    ...means of achieving unitary adjudication. See Maricopa County Mun. Water Con. Dist. v. Looney, 219 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1955); Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 154-59 (S.D.Calif. 1956), on app., State of California v. Rank, 293 F.2d 340, 348 (9th Cir. 1961); Gart v. Cole, 263 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 195......
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title III. Pleadings Andmotions
    • 1 de janeiro de 2019
    ...means of achieving unitary adjudication. See Maricopa County Mun. Water Con. Dist. v. Looney, 219 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1955); Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 154-59 (S.D.Calif. 1956), on app., State of California v. Rank, 293 F.2d 340, 348 (9th Cir. 1961); Gart v. Cole, 263 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 195......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2022 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts
    • 1 de janeiro de 2022
    ...means of achieving unitary adjudication. See Maricopa County Mun. Water Con. Dist. v. Looney, 219 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1955); Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 154-59 (S.D.Calif. 1956), on app., State of California v. Rank, 293 F.2d 340, 348 (9th Cir. 1961); Gart v. Cole, 263 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 195......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 23 Class Actions
    • United States
    • US Code 2020 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure For the United States District Courts [1] Title IV. Parties
    • 1 de janeiro de 2020
    ...means of achieving unitary adjudication. See Maricopa County Mun. Water Con. Dist. v. Looney, 219 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1955); Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1, 154-59 (S.D.Calif. 1956), on app., State of California v. Rank, 293 F.2d 340, 348 (9th Cir. 1961); Gart v. Cole, 263 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 195......

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