The people's voice., 1958-10-24

United States"
!, THE IVANHOE DECISION
On June %, 1853, the Suprem,
Court unanimously struck down ;
decision by the California Supreme
Court involving water delivery con
tracts from Friant Dam in the Cen
tral Valley project between the Blu
reau of Reclamation and the Ivanhot
Irrigation district.
The California Supreme Court, il
a 4-2 decision struck a heavy blow
at the 160-acre limitation provisions
of the 1902 Reclamation Act which
provides protection against land
monopoly and land speculation. 1t
held that the contract in question was
invalid, since the United States had
never owned the waters behind Friant
Dam, but had been acting as trus-
tee for the people of California who
actually owned them. California, ac-
cording to it's Supreme Court, had
merely allowed the United States to
undertake development of water
storage but had waived no ultimate
control and ownership in so doing.
California laws state that water
rights are inseparable from the land,
and the court held that the Bureau
Ivanhoe contract attempted separa-
ton in violation Of law by restricting
water deliveries to farms meeting the
acreage limitation provisions of the
1902 Reclamation Act. Thus, the
California Court held, the land own
ers with more than the prescribed
holdings were deprived of property
without due process of law, and, in
effect, the United States was acting
as public utility without conforming
to state law.
The nations highest court ruled on
the Ivanhoe and three other similar
cases since not only the power of the
United States to impose acreage limi-
tation was involved, but that of estab-
fishing repayment rates to irrigation
districts receiving irrigation water
from federal dams.
Section of the 1902 Reclamation
Act requires the United States to
comply with state law when it be-
comes necessary to obtain water
rights or vested interest in them to |
carry out instructions of Congress
to build irrigation projects. California
contends that this section overrides
all others in the Act, including the
acreage limitation provision, and that
in all instances where there is con-
flict, state law will prevail
The U. S. Supreme Court said in
its Ivanhoe decision, however, that
it had ruled earlier in the Gerlach
Livestock case that the power of Con-
gress to develop and impose condi-
lions of development on irrigation
projects was clear and unmistakable,
resting on the general welfare, man
agement and disposal of federal prop
erty clauses of the Constitution. In
so doing, the court also ruled that
he question of titled or vested rights
% unappropriated water was not nee
essary to consider, as the United
States clearly can acquire them as
necessary, if it has not already done,
30, in conformity to existing federal
egislation.
Section 8 of the 1902 Reclamation
Act, the court ruled, contains moth
ng that compels the United
States to deliver water under condi-
ions imposed by the state" To read
Section to the contrary would re-
Iuire the Secretary of the Interior
o violate Section (acreage limita-
ion), the provisions of which II
have been national policy for over
alf century we do not believe
hat Congress intended Section 8
o override it's long-established ma
ional policy. On the contrary, we
that the provisions of the
here as to excess acreage
re specifically required by Section 5
f the 1902 Act :"
Whenever there has been an ex-
option in a particular project to
creage limitation requirements in
ederal law, Congress has always
lade that exception by express en-
ctment. Moreover, Congress has :