United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, No. 1247-SD.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
Writing for the CourtGeorge G. Grover, Corona, Cal., for William W. Cottle and Katharine C. Gibbon
Citation165 F. Supp. 806
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT et al., Defendants.
Decision Date08 August 1958
Docket NumberNo. 1247-SD.

165 F. Supp. 806

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT et al., Defendants.

No. 1247-SD.

United States District Court S. D. California, S. D.

August 8, 1958.


165 F. Supp. 807
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
165 F. Supp. 808
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
165 F. Supp. 809
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
165 F. Supp. 810
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
165 F. Supp. 811
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
165 F. Supp. 812
William H. Veeder, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States

George G. Grover, Corona, Cal., for William W. Cottle and Katharine C. Gibbon.

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

Adolphus Moskovitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of California.

George Stahlman, Fallbrook, Cal., for Vail Co.

Franz Sachse, Fallbrook, Cal., Phil Swing, San Diego, Cal., for Fallbrook Public Utility Dist.

JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.

Prior to the beginning of the trial in this action, now set for October 1, 1958, extensive pretrial has been conducted, various legal propositions and motions have been briefed and argued. The court now proposes to rule on the motions, to determine certain of the legal principles to be applied during the trial and set forth its reasons and the applicable authorities.

A pretrial stipulation as to the facts not in controversy was executed by the major parties and approved by the court. It does not bind non-signatories, but a procedure has been devised so that in hearings before the court and the Master, the facts contained in the stipulation and pretrial order will be presented in summary form as evidence. Any party may offer evidence to controvert them.

Unless controverted and disapproved, the court and the Master propose to find in accord with such facts in the pretrial order.

I

History of the Litigation

The history of the litigation, commenced in 1951, appears in the following reported cases.

United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, D.C.1951, 101 F.Supp. 298 (Complaint states a cause of action; State of California permitted to intervene);

United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, D.C.1952, 108 F.Supp. 72 (Pretrial order and Rulings on legal proposition);

United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, D.C.1952, 109 F.Supp. 28 (Decision after trial is to defendants, Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. & State of California);

165 F. Supp. 813

United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, D.C.1953, 110 F.Supp. 767 (Findings, conclusions and judgment pursuant to decision in 109 F.Supp. 28);

Fallbrook Public Utility District v. United States District Court, 9 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 942 (Mandamus proceeding in Circuit);

People of State of California v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 647. (Reversal of partial judgment shown in 110 F.Supp. 767).

II

The Stipulation of November 29, 1951

The following stipulation was entered into between the United States and the State of California on November 29, 1951. Note that it is "for the benefit of all the parties to this cause."

In the United States District Court In and for the Southern District of California Southern Division United States of America, | Plaintiff, | v. | Civil No. 1247 Fallbrook Public Utility District, a | Stipulation public service corporation of the &gt State of California, et al., | Defendants, | People of the State of California, | Defendants in Intervention. |

On the 15th day of August, 1951, the People of the State of California, in accordance with invitation of the United States of America, petitioned this Court to intervene in this litigation. On that date an Order was allowed and entered by this Court granting the Petition.

For the clarification of the issues in this litigation, and for the benefit of all of the parties to this cause, it is hereby stipulated:

I

That in Paragraphs VIII and IX of plaintiff's Complaint herein, and in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Prayer of said Complaint, the word "paramount" is used in the same sense in which that word is used in the second paragraph, on page 374 of the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Peabody v. City of Vallejo, 2 Cal.2d 351 (fourth paragraph on page 494, 40 P.2d 486).

II

That in this cause, the United States of America claims only such rights to the use of water as it acquired when it purchased the Rancho Santa Margarita, together with any rights to the use of water which it may have gained by prescription or use, or both, since its acquisition of the Rancho Santa Margarita.

III

That the United States of America claims by reason of its sovereign status no right to the use of a greater quantity of water than is stated in Paragraph II, hereof.

IV

That the rights of the United States of America to the use of water herein are to be measured in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

V

That the parties to this Stipulation will request the entry of a Pretrial Order by this Court defining the issues in this cause, in conformity with the statements contained in this Stipulation.

VI

That there will be a full, complete and mutual exchange of data and information

165 F. Supp. 814
as to the subject matter of this cause collected by the respective parties to this Stipulation, including data respecting the issuance of any permits or licenses issued by the State of California in connection with the rights to the use of water of the Santa Margarita River. Such exchange of information by the United States, will be subject to clearance by the Commanding Officer, Camp Joseph H. Pendleton, in respect to military security, as determined by said officer

Dated: November 29, 1951.

Ernest A. Tolin, Edmund G. Brown United States Attorney Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General Betty Marshall Graydon of the State of California Assistant United States Attorney Arvin B. Shaw, Jr William H. Veeder, Arvin B. Shaw, Jr. Special Assistant to the Attorney Assistant Attorney General General of the United States B. Abbott Goldberg B. Abbott Goldberg, By Deputy Attorney General William H. Veeder Attorneys for the People of the State William H. Veeder of California

III

The Court's Interpretation of the Stipulation of 11/29/51

On January 6, 1958, during pretrial, the United States brought on for hearing a motion for an order declaring the stipulation binding as to the signatories, the United States and State of California, and that the court declare the "stipulation have ascribed to it the usual meaning of the terms set forth in it." Prior to decision of the motion, the Fallbrook P. U. D. and the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company, with the consent of the United States and the State of California, joined into the stipulation.

The court granted the motion of the United States, declared the stipulation binding and set forth the meaning of the stipulation by written order dated February 11, 1958, which follows:

In the United States District Court Southern District of California Southern Division United States of America, | Plaintiff, | No. 1247-SD-C v. | Fallbrook Public Utility District, | Order Respecting Binding Effect a public service corporation of the | and Meaning of Stipulation State of California; et al., > Dated November 29, Defendants, | 1951, Originally Entered Between People of the State of California, | the United States and Defendants in | the State of California Intervention |
165 F. Supp. 815

The United States having made a motion on January 6, 1958, for an order of this Court declaring (1) that the stipulation dated November 29, 1951, originally entered between the United States and the State of California, a copy of which is attached and by reference made a part of this order, is binding upon the parties thereto, and (2) that the stipulation should have ascribed to it the usual meaning of the terms set forth in it; and

The Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company having on January 6, 1958, declared in open court their desire to be parties to the stipulation, and the United States and the State of California having on January 6, 1958, declared in open court their agreement to the Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company becoming parties thereto; and

The State of California, the Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company having on January 6, 1958, expressed in open court their support of the motion of the United States, but having disagreed with the United States as to what meaning should be ascribed to the stipulation; and

This Court (1) having considered written points and authorities and oral argument by the parties to the stipulation regarding the meaning thereof; (2) having taken judicial notice of the furor concerning the nature of the claims of the United States in this action which existed when this action was originally filed; and (3) having considered testimony by the Attorney General of the United States to Congressional committees after the stipulation was entered into, stating his interpretation thereof;

Now, Therefore, It Is Ruled and Ordered as Follows:

I

The stipulation dated November 29, 1951, is binding upon the parties thereto, which are the United States, the State of California, the Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company.

II

The stipulation is unambiguous.

III

Paragraph I of the stipulation, the meaning of which is not in dispute among the parties, defines the word "paramount", as used in the complaint in this action, as being used in the same sense as in the opinion in the case of Peabody v. City of Vallejo, 2 Cal.2d 351, 40 P.2d 486, and therefore as having no reference to the sovereign character of the United States.

IV

Paragraphs II, III and IV of the stipulation must be read together and when so read have the following meaning:

A. Paragraph II of the stipulation lists and restricts the rights claimed in this
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State v. McCoy, No. 36224
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 19 Diciembre 1963
    ...amounts to an unwarranted extension of the rationale of the 'water rights' cases. United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 838 (D.C.1958), forcibly demonstrates that the 'water rights' theory is not to be extended by An examination of the Point Elliott treaty disclo......
  • Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, No. CV-F-94-5217 OWW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 9 Agosto 1995
    ...appropriation). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide state water permit applications. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 857 (S.D.Cal.1958). The Districts' argument that the Exchange Contractors do not make reasonable use of their water allocation has been w......
  • Producers v. U.S., No. 1:09–cv–01871 OWW DLB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 16 Febrero 2011
    ...Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide questions pertaining to state water permits. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 857 (S.D.Cal.1958) (cited with approval in Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, 900 F.Supp. 1304, 1317 (E.D.Cal.1995), rev'd on other grounds ......
  • Producers v. United States Of Amercia, No. 1:09-cv-01871 OWW DLB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 16 Febrero 2011
    ...Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide questions pertaining to state water permits. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806, 857 (S.D. Cal. 1958)(cited with approval in Westlands Water Dist. v Patterson, 900 F. Supp. 1304, 1317 (E.D. Cal. 1995), rev'd on other grou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State v. McCoy, No. 36224
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 19 Diciembre 1963
    ...amounts to an unwarranted extension of the rationale of the 'water rights' cases. United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 838 (D.C.1958), forcibly demonstrates that the 'water rights' theory is not to be extended by An examination of the Point Elliott treaty disclo......
  • Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, No. CV-F-94-5217 OWW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 9 Agosto 1995
    ...appropriation). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide state water permit applications. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 857 (S.D.Cal.1958). The Districts' argument that the Exchange Contractors do not make reasonable use of their water allocation has been w......
  • Producers v. U.S., No. 1:09–cv–01871 OWW DLB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 16 Febrero 2011
    ...Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide questions pertaining to state water permits. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F.Supp. 806, 857 (S.D.Cal.1958) (cited with approval in Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson, 900 F.Supp. 1304, 1317 (E.D.Cal.1995), rev'd on other grounds ......
  • Producers v. United States Of Amercia, No. 1:09-cv-01871 OWW DLB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 16 Febrero 2011
    ...Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide questions pertaining to state water permits. United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806, 857 (S.D. Cal. 1958)(cited with approval in Westlands Water Dist. v Patterson, 900 F. Supp. 1304, 1317 (E.D. Cal. 1995), rev'd on other grou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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