WSP06010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0...-, JJr: V.L U - 3 - Attorney General Brown reversed the position taken by his predecessor and urged the court to approve the contracts offered to the Ivanhoe and Madera Irriga- tion Districts, contending that they are "innccuous under State law" (State brief, p. 27) and are valid in all respects. He contended that although it is true the United States necessarily acts BS a trustee for the water users in operating a recla- mation project and IIlUSt comply with St.o>te laws regulating appropriations of wster, and although California law guarantees the right of s pemanent water supply to the water users J the 40 yea.r contract 1s nevertheless not invalid because 1 t fails to provide for any supply beyond the 40 year tem and can be validated as the sxpres- sion of a part only of the total obligation--that part occupied by the next 40 years (State brisf PP. 27-28); that even though considered as a contract for sals of water the contract is nevertheless not void merely because the United States does not own what it purports to sell (State brief, p. 17). upon the basis of his advice to the Authority, and the opinion of the Secretary of Interior, that title to the water and the right of the State to control the appropriation of water were not involved in the proceeding, a resolution was a.dopted on March 27 J 1951, requesting the Attorney Oeneral to protect the intereet of the State and the Authority by making every pos- sible effort to the end that any final deoree rendered in the Ivanhoe oase should state that the matters above mentioned were not involved. In adopting thie aesolu- tion, the expressed concern of the Authority was With the contention that a valida.- .ll2!!: of the contract before the Court "might supersede or impair the powers of the etBte with regsrd to the matters above mentiOlled". It appears eignificant that the Authority expressed no concern with the poesibility that the Court might invalidate the contract. Th1s appears to constitute an ilnplied recognition of the prior action of the Authority at ite meeting of November 30, 1948, herein recited. The Attorney Oeneral filed joint answers on behalf of the Stats and the Authority in the Ivanhoe and Madera casss in wIl:iah. by eeparate prayers, the Author1ty requested the court for a declaration in accordance with its resolution. The Prinoipal Attorney for the Division of Water Resources and his etaff filed a brief as amicus curiae in the Ivanhoe case pureuant to request of the Autho- rity taking the poei tion that all water in California is the property of the people of the State! that the United Ststes in operating a project eubject to the Federal reclamation laws must acquire rights to the use of water in accordance with State law; that in so doing the United States is acting as trustee for the actusl water users who will acquire a permanent right to the use of the water to the extent reasonable beneficial use is made thereof in accordance with permits to be issued by the State Engineer, the right when acquired to be appurtenant to the land irri- gated; that the contract mUBt be conditioned upon recognition by the United States of the rights of the water usere and that the relationships, rights, powere and duties of the parties to the cont1'aot and the state with respect to one another and to the water, the subject matter of the contract. should be determined and de- clared by the court in p8Bsing upon the validity of the contractj that relevant federal law should be construed in a manner to avoid conflict with etate law if reaaonably poesible and that it may be eo construed by interpreting Section 9(e) of the Reclamation Projeot Act of 1939 to authorize use of temporary or interim contraots for water delivery under cirCUMstances which do not permit immediate execution of 8 repayment contract until such time as a repayment contract under the provisions of either Section 7(a) or 9(d) of the act can be exeouted. No position was taken upon various controversial provisions of the contract, inCluding the ex- cess land provisions. At the suggestion of the court, the State Engineer subse- quently became a party to the rvanhoe and Madera actions and filed an answer in each which conformed to the position expressed in the amicus curiae brief. The court held that the contracts were invalid because, among other reasons, they fail to recognize and indeed negative the right of the dietricts and their landollllers to recei ~ a parroanent supply of water, appurtenant to the lands irrigated in accordance with Stata law and the expre.e provision of Secticn 8 of ths Federal ReclllJllation Aot of 1902, eubject only to the power of the Stste Engineer to impoee tema and conditions to protect the public interest in permits to appro- priate water. The Attorney Oeneral and the districts have appealed from the judg- ments in the Ivanhoe and Madera cases. The Authority instructed the Attorney Oeneral to withdraw a notioe of appeal from the Ivanhoe judgment which had been filed by him en ite behalf and "to perfect and prosecute the appeal on hehalf" of the people of the State of Californ:;.~ to the end that a final decision will be rendered by the highest court of this State on the legal issues involved in said case." At the same time it requested the Principal Attorney for the Division of Water Resources to express his views upon appeal ae amicus curiae (see Resolution dated April 28, 1953).