Opinion ID: 380389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 This case had its genesis in a declaratory action in 1939. The action had been instituted to determine the obligation of the United States Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water to the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, which was situated in the Yakima Reclamation Project. A cross-complaint was also filed in the case requesting the court to determine the respective water rights of users of the waters of the Yakima River and its tributaries. 3 During the pendency of this action, the decision in Fox v. Ickes, 137 F.2d 30 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 792, 64 S.Ct. 204, 88 L.Ed. 477 (1943), was rendered. That decision, which dealt with the same Yakima Reclamation Project, essentially decided the issue of the obligation of the Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water within the Project. It was determined that the water rights of the irrigation districts and other water users were property rights acquired by their beneficial use of the water and were not merely contractual rights with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the Bureau of Reclamation was not obligated to furnish any more water than was available, the court determined that the Bureau was obligated to distribute the available water according to the priorities of the parties that had been established according to the law of the State of Washington. Id. 137 F.2d at 33. 4 After the decision in Fox v. Ickes, only the issue of the actual priorities of the individual water users was left undecided. However, the parties in this case elected not to continue the adjudication over that issue. Instead, they agreed upon the 1945 consent decree. 5 The consent decree established an allocation schedule which defined the obligation of the Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water from the natural flow of the Yakima River, and its tributaries, from storage in its various reservoirs on the Yakima watershed, and from other sources, to the plaintiffs, to the defendants, and to the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project. (Record at 145). As a result of the consent decree, the parties, such as appellant Sunnyside, were accorded certain non-proratable allocations of water, and others, such as appellee Roza Irrigation District (Roza), were accorded proratable allocations of water in exchange for their claimed water rights. 6 No major problems arose in regard to the consent decree until 1977 when a severe drought affected the area. Faced with the prospect of a record drought, parties to the decree invoked the district court's continuing jurisdiction over matters of interpretation and administration of the consent decree. (Record at 173). Among the several motions filed with the district court was a motion by the United States for authorization of a plan for pumping dead storage water from the Lake Cle Elum Reservoir (a reservoir within the Yakima Reclamation Project). The motion was denied as the district court ruled that the pumping of dead storage water from the reservoir was outside the provisions of the consent decree; thus, it could neither authorize nor prevent the pumping. (Record at 448). 7 The Bureau proceeded to install the pumps in the reservoir and an emergency permit to pump the dead storage water was granted by the State of Washington. The irrigation problems that were anticipated did not develop, however, and no water was actually pumped in that year. 8 On March 13, 1978, Roza filed a motion in district court seeking an interpretation of the consent decree. The motion sought an interpretation that the dead storage water from the Lake Cle Elum Reservoir was not available from storage at the time of the entry of the 1945 (consent decree) and therefore (was) not part of the total water supply available as the same is defined and covered in . . . said judgment. (Record at 461). In a memorandum responding to that motion, the United States supported the interpretation sought by Roza. The United States also stated that another issue raised by the motion was whether rights in the live storage water could be protected if the dead storage water were withdrawn. 9 In its Memorandum and Order, the district court ruled that the dead storage water in the Lake Cle Elum Reservoir was not water that was subject to the 1945 consent decree; the dead storage water was project water, and that the dead storage water could be withdrawn through pumping for the use of the parties financing the pumping project, but only after permission had been granted by the State of Washington to withdraw the water, and full provision had been made for the monthly allocations under the 1945 consent decree. 10 Sunnyside appeals that Memorandum and Order, contending that the dead storage water was part of the total water supply subject to the consent decree; and the dead storage water was not project water.