Home/S.D. California/Rank v. (Krug) United States

Rank v. (Krug) United States

142 F. Supp. 1
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 11, 1956
Docket685-ND
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 142 F. Supp. 1 (Rank v. (Krug) United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rank v. (Krug) United States, 142 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Cal. 1956).

Opinion

INDEX BY TOPICS

Page

I. Preliminary statement............................................... 36

II. General geographical & physical features.............................. 39

III. History of litigation................................................. 49

IV. The parties.............................'............................ 53

V. The pleadings ...................................................... 54

VI. Jurisdiction of (1) subject matter

(2) defendant officials

(3) defendant districts ............................... 62

VII. Jurisdiction of the State of California.................'................ 66

VIII. Jurisdiction of the United States...................................... 69

IX. Default against United States........................................ 85

X. Eminent domain .................................................... 89

XI. Water rights under California law — general...........................104

XII. California water rights of plaintiffs....................................115

XIII. California water rights of defendants.................................. 116

(a) Purchase & exchange contracts................................. 117

(b) Change of point of diversion.................................... 117

(c) Applications to appropriate held by the United States............. 121

(d) Prescription .................................................. 125

(e) Laches ....................................................... 128

(f) Estoppel .......................... 128

(g) Public use ................................................... 130

XIV. Watershed and county of origin statutes...............................149

XV. Class action ........................................................ 154

XVI. Election of remedies — Tucker Act.................................... 159

XVII. Inadequacy of remedy at law......................................... 160

XVIII. Physical solution & form of judgment.................................. 161

XIX. Injunctive relief against United States................................ 175

XX. Tranquillity Irrigation District........................................176

XXI. City of Fresno...................................................... 178

(a) Complaint in intervention...................................... 178

(b) Ancillary proceedings ......................................... 178

*36 HALL, District Judge.

I.

Preliminary Statement.

This is a water rights case.

One phase or another of it has been considered in five reported opinions, viz.: Rank v. Krug, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 773, United States v. United States District Court, etc., 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 303, State of California v. United States District Court, etc., 9 Cir., 213 F.2d 818, Rank v. United States, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 310, and City of Fresno v. Edmonston, D.C., 131 F.Supp. 421.

In view of the number of cases considered by the court in this opinion, and the fact that many of them are cited to several propositions, and to alleviate the frustrating use of the conventional “supra” and “post,” an alphabetical index of cases is attached as Appendix “A,” page 187.

This opinion is long. There is repetition in it. But these things are necessitated in order to have a proper understanding of the numerous legal and factual matters involved, many of which are complex, and several are important questions of first impression.

In view of the contentions made by some of the defendants at various times throughout the trial and related proceedings, it is well to state at the outset, as a reminder to the parties that this court has neither -the desire nor the power to question the wisdom, of any of the applicable Acts of Congress or of the laws of the State of California relating to the Central Valley plan or project or any unit of it, and that this suit is but an invocation of the powers confided by the Constitution and laws to the judicial department of the government to interpret and apply the applicable law to the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. Such relief in the form of a judgment as may be found necessary is but the usual exercise of the judicial power, though it may thereby restrict the conduct of the government and its officers to that which is judicially determined to be lawful and within its or their respective powers. If government officials were the sole judges of their powers and their conduct, then the courts would not be necessary.

This is not a suit wherein the plaintiffs seek to establish for each of them their separate rights inter sese to a given quantity of water as between ■themselves or as against one another, but it is a suit to establish a common right to a common source of water. It is a type of suit familiar, for many years, to the arid West wherein parties seek the adjudication and enforcement by a court of equity of claimed common rights to the use of water, which rights are asserted to be interfered with or taken by the acts of the defendants contrary to applicable laws.

It is impossible to make any short and comprehensive statement of the issues. They will be dealt with in detail hereinafter.

Stated as simply as possible, the controversy may be described as follows: The plaintiffs do not seek to prevent the construction or operation of the Central Valley Plan or any unit or project thereof, but contend that the lawful operation of the Plan and units involved compels recognition and enforcement of their rights to water, as tested by applicable Federal and California laws. The- defendants at one stage or another have recognized -that the plaintiffs do have rights to water. The dispute throughout the trial has largely been over the extent and enforceability of those rights, the area having the San Joaquin river as its common source, the quantity of water required to fulfill those rights, and the most reasonable and economic method of doing so.

The plaintiffs and their class are riparian and overlying owners of land along the San Joaquin river and on its alluvial cone, below Friant dam and above Mendota Pool, 59 miles below Fri-ant. They formerly had the full flow of the river in its natural channel to satisfy their direct and underground supply, *37

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Springfield Clinic, LLP v. Primex Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
C.D. California, 2022
GARY v. AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY, LLC
D. New Jersey, 2021
Estate of Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co.
653 F. Supp. 2d 181 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Westlands Water District v. United States
153 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (E.D. California, 2001)
Pitts v. Ohio Department of Taxation (In Re Pitts)
241 B.R. 862 (N.D. Ohio, 1999)
Villalobos v. NORTH CAROLINA GROWERS ASS'N
42 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Puerto Rico, 1999)
Westlands Water District v. Patterson
900 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D. California, 1995)
Reppun v. Board of Water Supply
656 P.2d 57 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1982)
Biella v. State Department of Highways
652 P.2d 1100 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1982)
McKee v. United Salt Corp.
630 P.2d 1237 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1980)
O'HARE v. Valley Utilities, Inc.
547 P.2d 1147 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1976)
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
537 P.2d 1251 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
71 F.R.D. 10 (D. Nevada, 1975)
Cancel v. San Juan Construction Co., Inc.
387 F. Supp. 916 (D. Puerto Rico, 1974)
Adria Smith Stanton v. United States of America
434 F.2d 1273 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Murphy Oil Corp. v. Hickel
307 F. Supp. 812 (W.D. Arkansas, 1969)
Iowa v. Union Asphalt & Roadoils, Inc.
409 F.2d 1239 (Eighth Circuit, 1969)
State of Iowa v. Union Asphalt & Roadoils, Inc., in Re Application for Attorney Fees Verne Lawyer and Lex Hawkins, Applicants-Appellees v. State of Iowa
409 F.2d 1239 (Eighth Circuit, 1969)
Puget Sound Alumni of Kappa Sigma, Inc. v. City of Seattle
422 P.2d 799 (Washington Supreme Court, 1967)
Gustine Land & Cattle Co. v. United States
174 Ct. Cl. 556 (Court of Claims, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F. Supp. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rank-v-krug-united-states-casd-1956.