Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~, <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />(ji)1880 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />q.,s-'. ? <br /> <br />C <br />o <br />P <br />Y <br /> <br />COURT BACKS U. S. IN WATER DISPUTE <br /> <br />Upholds Diversion of Rivers for California Project <br /> <br />By Anthony Lewis <br />Special to The New York Times <br /> <br />WASHINGTON, April 15-- The supreme Court cleared away today <br />some lingering legal obstacles to the Great Central Valley reclama- <br />tion project in California. <br /> <br />The Court unanimously ordered dismissal of a suit pressed for <br />16 years by landowners who lost the use of some water as a result <br />of the project. They had won a lower court order requiring the <br />Government to build 10 small dams SO they would have an alternative <br />water supply. <br /> <br />Loss of the suit by the Government would have been a severe <br />blow to Federal reclamation projects everywhere. <br /> <br />The lower courts said the Government had not proceeded in the <br />required way--condemning the needed property rights in forma 1 <br />lawsuits. Instead, the Government simply diverted the water, leaving <br />issues of compensation to be debated later. <br /> <br />The view of the lower courts caused Government officials grave <br />concern. They said it would make reclarnation work everywhere wait <br />on lengthy litigation,bringing the Central Valley and other projects <br />to a stop. <br /> <br />Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the supreme Court today, <br />rejected the theory of the lower courts--a Federal district court <br />in California and the Court of APPea1s for the Ninth Circuit. <br /> <br />He said the Government was authorized to proceed as it did, <br />by seizing the affected landowners' water rights. Their only <br />recourse, he said, was to sue aftwerward for compensation. Their <br />loss would be measured by the difference in the value of their <br />property before and after. <br /> <br />I,. , <br /> <br />./ <br />