Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/627/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:27:24+00:00

Document:
Claimants to water rights along the San Joaquin River below the Friant Dam in California brought suit against the United States, local officials of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and a number of irrigation and utility districts to enjoin the storage and diversion of water at the dam, which is part of the Central Valley Reclamation Project, authorized by Congress and undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation under the Act of August 26, 1937, 50 Stat. 844. The suit was brought originally in a State Court and was removed to a Federal District Court. The City of Fresno intervened as a party plaintiff and, in addition to injunctive relief, sought a declaratory judgment as to (1) its rights to underground water fed by the river, (2) its statutory priority, under California law, to the use of water for municipal or domestic purposes, (3) its prior right under the California statutes because of its location, and (4) its entitlement to project water from the United States at the same rate charged for water delivered for irrigation purposes.
1. The suit against the United States must fail for lack of consent; the relief against the Reclamation Bureau officials must also fail as being in truth against the United States; the United States had seized, in whole or in part, the water rights asserted by the claimants, and their recourse was through a suit under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, for damages. Dugan v. Rank, ante, p. 372 U. S. 609. Pp. 372 U. S. 628-629.
2. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 does not mean that state law may operate to prevent the United States from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire the water rights of others. Pp. 372 U. S. 629-630.
3. Fresno has no preferential rights to contract for project water, but may receive it only if, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, irrigation will not be adversely affected. Pp. 372 U. S. 630-631.
officials of the Bureau of Reclamation acted entirely within the scope of their authority in operating the Project as they did, and fixing the rates for water in accordance with congressional mandate, as approved by this Court in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275. Pp. 372 U. S. 631-632.
"within the scope of their statutory authority and were carrying out the duties imposed upon them by their official positions. . . . The complaint of Fresno in this regard is a complaint against the United States, and this dispute may not be entertained judicially without a waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the United States."
"if and when such rights have been established in accordance with state law, Fresno may be able effectively to protest the impounding of waters by these defendants in contravention of such rights."
Our opinion in Dugan v. Rank, supra, controls the decision in this case. There, we decided that the suit against the United States must fail for lack of consent; that the relief against the Reclamation Bureau officials must also fail as being in truth against the United States; that the United States had seized, in whole or in part, the water rights asserted by the claimants; and that their recourse was through a Tucker Act suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1346. The same is true here.
priority of domestic over irrigation uses. However, § 8 does not mean that state law may operate to prevent the United States from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire the water rights of others. This was settled in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275 (1958). Rather, the effect of § 8 in such a case is to leave to state law the definition of the property interests, if any, for which compensation must be made.
". . . a watershed or area wherein water originates, or an area immediately adjacent thereto which can conveniently be supplied with water therefrom. . . ."
"No contract relating to municipal water supply or miscellaneous purposes . . . shall be made unless, in the judgment of the Secretary [of the Interior], it will not impair the efficiency of the project for irrigation purposes."
Fresno has no preferential rights to contract for project water, but may receive it only if, in the Secretary's judgment, irrigation will not be adversely affected.
"as in the Secretary's judgment will produce revenues at least sufficient to cover an appropriate share of the annual operation and maintenance cost and an appropriate share of such fixed charges as the Secretary deems proper. . . ."
The Secretary exercised this discretion, and so notified the Congress as to the basis for his determination of the appropriate charge for municipal water. Allocation of Costs and Feasibility Report of February 24, 1947, H.R.Doc. No. 146, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 19; 1 Engle, Central Valley Project Doc. (1956), H.R.Doc. No. 416, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. 574, 594-596. This report estimated a rate of $10 per acre-foot for municipal water and about $3 per acre-foot foot or less for irrigation water. Id. at 594-596. The latter rate was based on farm benefits, as well as the ability of the user to pay over a protracted period. It was estimated that this rate would return during the repayment period only about one-fourth of the project capital cost allocated to irrigation. Id. at 576-577, 597. As to municipal rates, the return during the same period was estimated at over three times the project capital cost allocated to the delivery of municipal water. * This surplus, together with that from project electric energy, would be used to pay project costs allocated to irrigation but which were beyond the ability of the irrigators to pay.
Congress has been kept advised as to the manner in which these rate schedules are operating. 2 Engle, Central Valley Projects Doc. (1957), H.R.Doc. No. 246, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 79-84, 261-262.
In accordance with the Secretary's estimates, long-term contracts for Friant Dam water provide for a rate of $3.50 per acre-foot for Class 1 water and $1.50 for Class 2, while contracts for municipal water supply call for $10 per acre-foot. It appears amply clear that the Reclamation Bureau officials were acting entirely within the scope of their authority in operating the Project in this manner and fixing the rates for water in accordance with congressional mandate, all of which has specifically received our approval in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, supra, at 357 U. S. 295.
The judgment, insofar as it relates to this petition of the City of Fresno, is affirmed, and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the same.
* The payments for irrigation water amounted to $58,545,475, while project capital cost allocated to irrigation was $221,551,600. Municipal water rates would return $29,667,932, while project capital cost allocated to municipal water supply was $9,091,800.

References: § 1346
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1346
 § 8
 v. 
 § 8
 v.