# Petitioners Brief — IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. BEN YELLEN (Nos. 79-435, 79-421, 79-425) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0923%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petitioners Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1979 ## Text ICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK IN THE ” Supreme Court of the United States OcToBER TERM, 1979 No. 79-435 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION District, ET AL., Petitioners, v. Ben YELLEN, ET AL., Respondents. BRIEF OF PETITIONER IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Of Couns. !: REGINALD L. KNox, JR. Horton, KNox, CARTER CHARLES E. CoRKE N, KNOX, CARTE "419 : : & Foote 4128 55th Avenue, N.E. 7 ay Building, Suite 101 T . Seattle, Washington 286 Breadeer (208) 523 9964 El Centro, California a ae 92243 (714) 352-2821 NortTHcuTt Evy FREDERICK H. RITTs Rosert F.. Prerrowskl, JR. WituiaM H. BURCHETTE Rap J. GILLIS Law OFFICES OF Nortucutt Ey Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 342-0800 Attorneys for Imperial Irrigation District January 17, 1980 Press oF Byron S. ADAMS PRINTING, INC., WASHINGTON, D. C. ay eer Yaw. AL a ad le, 7 a on 2: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SINE: Sree nys to base dh obscene oredenieenees 1 GI ec Nadine thea Neh eiecee hina ncaa enenanns 2 | Statutory Provisions INVOLVED .............00e000: 2 I-III ici cae deveeibacendéecwens ten 3 STATEMENT OF THE OABR 20... ccc ccc cccccccccces 4 I CE 6 tras direc ne ek uenn ehakne een 4 The Relationship of This Case to Arizona v. Cali- agli. Seas Or aera ey ane rk Aa mee aoe 6 ee eee 9 Historical Background: The origin of Imperial Ir- rigation District’s presented perfected rights 10 The Colorado River Compact .................. 12 ~The Boulder Canyon Project Act .............. 13 The All-American Canal Contract and the Hewes NGL cs vebackuswd cd abieunucadesccucess 15 er 17 ARGUMENT I. The Boulder Canyon Project Act Does Not Author- ize Acreage Limitations on Present Perfected Rights sane e eee eee ence ence ence rece ceeeeeees 25 A. The plain language of the Project Act specific- ally requires the satisfaction of present per- WE IN Gu eitare blake 5540 a5 6KG cee kas owe 25 1. The § 6 Requirement that Present Perfected PPT eee 25 2. The Incompatibility of §6 and Acreage EE HAA 5S eh ovis 4b ebaraesd babar’ 30 . ew ae II. IIT. Table of Contents Continued Page B. The legislative history of the Boulder Canyon Project Act confirms that § 14 was not intended to imply an authority to limit water deliveries to 160 acres of private land in single ownership ©. Thirty-one years of consistent administrative construction by six secretaries confirms that the Project Act does not authorize acreage limi- tations in Imperial Valley .................. D. Congress has ratified administrative construc- tion to the effect that the Project Act does not authorize limitations in the District ......... The Decisions Not To Apply An Acreage Limita- tion To The Privately Owned Lands In Imperial Irrigation District Have Become Final And Irre- I bao bata tks enue ks ce ees aneneee ran pene hemes er errr Be SOR kc akdv chad enseeseceak>adakeues a5 C. Validation by judicial proceeding ............ D. The attempted destruction of established values The Court of Appeals Erred In Applying Consti- tutional ‘‘Case and Controversy’’ Requirements By Allowing Respondents, Ben Yellen, Et Al., To Participate As Parties Based On Conjectural Harm and Speculative Relief .................. A. The constitutional tests of standing ......... How the respondents got into court ......... The lack of particularized injury ............ ree Cee ery ree BOQ Even if it is assumed arguendo that Dr. Yellen, et al., once had standing, that standing would necessarily have ceased when one-half the con- struction costs of the All-American Canal were EY 5c Gi vince) p 440 bamed connor tiwnsweas ST sie os cow ek * owe vaiaklut APE Cee PO 38 46 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ill Court CasEs: Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943) ........ 57 American Book Company v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49 (1895) 86 Andrews v. Lilian Irrigation District, 66 Neb. 458, 92 N.W. 612 (1902), rehearing, 97 N.W. 336 (1903) 71 Ashton v. Cameron County Water District, 298 U.S. TL I Ee 73 Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931) .......... 68 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) ........ passim Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) ..7, 26, 27, 28, 30 Arizona v. California, 439 U.S. 419 (1979) ..... 7, 18, 27, 28 Bayside Enterprises Inc. v. NLRB, 429 U.S. 298 (1978) 57 Bekins v. United States, 304 U.S. 27 (1938) .......... 73 Board of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 eG EEO 57 California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1979) ....10, 21, 29, 38 Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, ee a ceca nc scescces 71 De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) .......... 86 Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study FUOUN, BI i OOD ooo c nc ccc c ccc cc cccse 82 Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 47 U.S.L.W. RE Ee 76, 81 Hanson v. Kittitas Reclamation District, 75 Wash. 297, a ive cc cence 71 Hewes v. All Persons, No. 15460, Superior Court, Im- perial County (1933) ............. 15, 16, 47, 50, 64, 69 Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S. 82 (1987) ........... ccc cee. 35 Ickes v. Fox, 137 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1943) on remand .. 36 In re Imperial Irrigation District, 10 F. Supp. 832 (1934), rev’d, 87 F.2d 355 (1936) ............... iv Table of Authorities Continued Page Ivanhoe Irrigation District vy. All Parties & Persons, 47 Cal. 2d 597, 306 P.2d 824 (1957) ........ 69, 70, 71 Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 | (| errerrree reer errr Tear. to passim Merchants’ National Bank of San Diego v. Escondido Irrigation District, 144 Cal. 329, 77 P. 937 (1904) 33 Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895) .......-....0 ee . & Missouri v. Ross, 299 U.S. 72 (1936) .........-eee eee 37 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974) ....° 57 North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971) ......... 86 Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 968 UB. BO4 (1GEB) oon ccc cece cecvicctecccude 57 Palmer v. Railroad Commission, 167 Cal. 163, 138 P. 8) re rere rrmrrs Tr yer ters ste 35 Perrine v. Chesapeake & D. Canal Co., 50 US. (9 A: Bi | een eee e eT rer eee Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969 57 Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65 (1974) ..........-.0008- 61, 62 Senior v. Anderson, 138 Cal. 716, 72 P. 349 (1903) .... 35 Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman, 152 Cal. 716, 93 P. a errr errr rere err ree eee 35 Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (1958) 72 Turner v. Kings River Conservation District, 360 F.2d coe Gf | rrr Tre rere rear 81 Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965) ............ 57, 58, 59 United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977), reh. denied, 595 F.2d 525 : . ) rer Ore Prt Ser hore ir Te cee passim United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 322 F. Supp. 11 (S.D. Cal. 1971), rev’d, 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977), reh. denied, 595 F.2d 525 (1979) ....... passim United States v. Midwest Oil, 236 U.S. 459 (1915) .... 60 Table of Authorities Continued Vv Page United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 242 U.S. ar ek i Oe el ea ce Vurie eres becuase onc 59 United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (1979) ...56, 57 United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Company, 535 F.2d 1093, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121 (1977) ..... 24, 25, 84 Wright v. Best, 19 Cal. 2d 368, 121 P.2d 702 (1942) .. 35 Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922) .......... 67 Yellen, et al. v. Hickel, 335 F. Supp. 200 (S.D. Cal. | TEPTES READ Bar oS Rr ey eto pepe eNO Qe re ni 6 Yellen, et al. v. Hickel, 352 F. Supp. 1300 (S.D. Cal. oo BEES Ee Te ee oe Pn hanno oe Meee ea 6 Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) ...... ccc ccccccecs 57 STATUTES AND Compacts: Act of February 2, 1911, 36 Stat. 895, 43 U.S.C. 4374 4 Act of July 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 200, 43 U.S.C. §449.... 4 Act of August 9, 1912, 37 Stat. 266 Section 3, 43 U.S.C. §§ 543, 544 ................ 4 Act of August 13, 1914, 38 Stat. 689 Section 12, 43 U.S.C. $418 .......... cc cece cece 4 Act of August 11, 1916, 39 Stat. 508 SUN a WEE, DOIE oo bess kaa vee csevd cas 4 Act of January 25, 1917, Sections 1-4, 39 Stat. 868 .... 4 Act of May 20, 1920, 41 Stat. 605, 43 U.S.C. §375.... 4 Act to Provide for the Application of the Reclamation Law to Irrigation Districts, 42 Stat. 541, Section 1, ee Ie EE hc lnc sd 85 trict repaid 50 percent of the costs, the controversy became moot at that point as to Dr. Yellen, et al., since the remedy which they sought was no longer available. ‘*[W Jhen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court ... an event occurs which renders it im- possible for this court . . . to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.’? American Book Company v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49, 52 (1895), quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895). Cf. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974); North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). If this Court determines that respondents lack standing, and decides the case on that issue without reaching the merits, we respectfully suggest that the appropriate procedure would be to vacate the order of the Court of Appeals permitting intervention (559 F.2d, at 543 (1973) ) and the decisions of the Court of Appeals on the merits (559 F.2d, at 509 (1977) and 995 F.2d, at 525 (1979)), since respondents lacked standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court against the United States, thus leaving that judgment intact as res judicata. One thing that all agree upon is that the United States did have standing in the Dis- trict Court. CONCLUSION The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and the appeal of Yellen, et al., from the judgment of the District Court against the United States should be dismissed. In the first alternative, if Yellen, et al., are held not to have had standing to intervene to appeal from the 86 District Court’s judgment against the United States, the judgment of the Circuit Court should be vacated and the order permitting intervention to appeal should be vacated. In the second alternative, if the case has become moot while on appeal, in consequence of the payment of over one-half of the construction charges, terminat- ing the Secretary’s power to fix land prices, the judg- ment of the Court of Appeals should be vacated as having become moot while the case was under submis- sion there, and the appeal should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Of Counsel: REGINALD L. Knox, JR. CHARLES E. CorKER Horton, Knox, CARTER & Foore 4128 55th Avenue, N.E. ae Seattle, Washington oy seamen ia 101 ~ (206) 528-9964 El Centro, California 92243 (714) 352-2821 Nortucutt ELy FrRepDerIcK H. Ritts Rosert F’, PIeETROWSKI, JR. WILLIAM H. BURCHETTE Ratpu J. GILLIS Law OFFICES OF NortHcutTt Eby Watergate 600 Building Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 342-0800 Attorneys for Imperial Irrigation District January 17, 1980 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_0923%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.