Appendix — Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist.

IN THE

“Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1972

No. 71-1456

~ Sacyer Lanp Company, et al.,

pet" Appellants,

ig vs.

© ‘TULARE Lake BAsIN WATER STorAGE DisTRICT, a pub-

"= Tie district,

ss Appellee.

Appeal From the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California.

APPENDIX.

April 20, 1971

Page

cal List of Relevant Docket Entries ....

, App. p. 1

5

-0f Motion and Motion of Defendant to :

1

m and Order 20

of Defendant, Tulare Lake Basin Water

st of Counsel to Clerk April 19,1971... 29

-of Clerk to Governor and Attorney General ;

: ; 0

ras cine wo uchead Sep 40 197A dsssc:: 31

From Counsel for Amicus Curiae to Court a

er From Counsel to Court June 4, i 34

« From Court to Counsel June 7, 1971 ....... 36

on to Appear as Amicus Curiae 37

is’ Statement of Facts 39

tiffs’ List of Exhibits . 65

’ Exhibit Number 1 67

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 2 68

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 3 69

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 4 70

’ Exhibit Number 10 .... 11

? Exhibit Number 11 72

“> Defendant’s Exhibit: Number S

Plaintiffs’: Response to Defendant's Statement of

Facts

Letter From Counsel to Court June 11, 1971 .... 100

Letter From Court to Counsel September 2,

1971 101

" itie Ween Clack to Comment, Fob, 18, 1972 .... 102

Memorandum and Order ... . - 103

Notice From Clerk to Counsel March 10, 1972 .. 121

| Fid sums retd svd. ; ¥

©” Fid stipin & ord thereon that deft has to 7/10/70

Fid stipin & ord thereon that hrng on defts

__Motn to dismis may be contd to 9/21/70.

26/70,

[ae Fid dft’s notc of motn & motn to disms, note for

hrng on 8/10/70

. x Fid deft’s suppimnt! memo of pts & auth in sup-

port of motn to disms.

ee) >: Fid pits memo of Pts & authys in oppostn to

3 Mtn to dismiss.

Ent predgs on hrng on deft’s motn to dismiss

as to Tulare Lake, etc. Ord stand submtd. Briefs to

, "° Fid reply memo of pts & auth of deft.

/13/70

He Fid memorandum & order denying deft’s motn to

‘Gismiss & ordered a three judge court be convened.

Oe eee

- 11/20/70» Fanos? tee ye

| Fid dett’s request & ord thereon that deft has

to 12/15/70 to file answer.

12/14/70

Fid answer of deft, — Lake Basin after

Storage Dist.

si Bie,

“Fld copy of letter of Judge Crocker to respety

-cncl setting April 29.& 30 for. trial of this 3

judge case, Discovery to be completed 30 days

prior to trial & trial briefs to be submitted to

| all three judges £0 coy eee ee

3/10/71 - 3

Fid letter from Judge Crocker to respctv patys

advancing trial date of 3 judge court from April

29 & 30 to April 22 & 23, 1971

3/12/71

Fid letter from Judge Crocker to respctv ptys

‘tenatively a trial dates for June 16, 17

& 18.

4/20/71

“Mid note of trial by three-judge court to Gov.

Reagan & Atty Genl in‘compliance with 28 USC

2284.

4/30/71

Fld pltf’s request for admissions.

5/24/71

Fid deft, Tulare Lake Basin Water Dist answers

& objections to requests for admission of Salyer

Land Co. .

6/1/73 .-4:-+. «:

Fld ex pare order that California Cental Valle

Flood Control Assn is granted permission to file

an amicus curiae brief.

so “Fid dett’s trial brief. Mid copies to Judges

Browning & Schnacke. |

19/71: pe

Fld Ptn of Denslow Green & ORD thereon to

Z app as amicus curiae on behalf of Irrigation Dis: -

‘etricts of Calif.

“> Fld Plaintiff's list of exhibits.

ou

_ EX PARTE ORD Pours to req of cns for pitf

- & with concurrence of counsel for defts ORD trial

date of 6/16/71 be vacated & set aside and ex-

hibits of resp cnsl to be lodged with clerk and

ae case be submitted on agreed stamnt of facts. Clos-

> “ing Briefs to be filed 15-15-15. e

F earn

. OE dalle Wists Ws GhclP ‘dkhbanar oe face:

= 6/28/11 :

* _ . id brief of Central Valleys Flood Control Assn

~~~ (as amicus curiae)

. mm ue

~___. Ass'n of California.

ann

Fid pltf’s opening brief following submission of

factual statements.

ili

8/11/71

Fid pitf’s reply Brief following submission of

Factual Statements. Mid copies to Judges Browning

& Schnacke.

9/30/71

Fid Pitfs supplemental Memorandum. Mid

copies to Jdgs Browning & Schnacke

10/4/71

Fid suppimntl memo of defts. Mid copies~ to

Judges

2/17/72

Fid memo & order of Jdg. Crocker & Jdg.

Schnacke: Deft ordered to submit a plan to correct

malapportionment within 6 mo of date this de-

cision becomes final. If deft to redevision

the district into divisions which are reasonably

equal in assessed valuation & also possess the

same general character of water rights or interest

in the water of a common source as required by

sect 39777 of the Calif. Water Code, the plan may

provide for elections at large. Fld concurring in

part & dissenting in part opinion of Judge Brown-

ing. Mid copies to respctv ptys.

3/10/72

Pur to Jdg Crocker entered judgment hif filed

on 2/17/72. Mild notc of entry of jdgmt to respctv

ptys.

3/14/72

Fid pitf’s notice of appeal to the Supreme Court

of the United States.

~ Merced, California 95340

_ Telephone: 209-722-6244

“THOMAS KEISTER GREER

~ Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

_ Telephone: 209-483-5332

- Attorneys for Plaintiffs

_ United States District Court, Eastern District of Cali-

cele. Southern Division.

Salyer Land Company, a California corporation, C.

~ Everette Salyer; Fred Salyer; Lawrence Ellison; and

_ Harold Shawl, Plaintiffs, v. Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District, a public = Defendant. Civil No.

: F4l4.

__ NOW COME the plaintifts Salyer Land Company, a

California corporation, C. Everette Salyer, Fred Salyer,

| ‘Lawrence Ellison, and Harold Shawl, and complain of

the defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District,

_ a public district, as follows:

He I

_ The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to

_ the provisions of Section 1343 of Title 28 of the United

_ States Code, that is to say, this is a civil action author-

"ized by Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States

(i gallataagion algal am

tutio, tae & ae Vail hen in te

al rights of citizens or of all persons within the

oe

jurisdiction of the United States. The rights here sought

to be redressed are rights guaranteed by the due proc.

ess and equal protection clauses. of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,

as hereinafter more fully appears.

I

Plaintiff Salyer Land Company is now, and at all

times herein mentioned since 1946 has been, a corpora-

tion organized and existing under and by virtue of the

laws of the State of California. Salyer Land Company

farms approximately 28,000 acres of land in Tulare

Lake Basin Water Storage District, of which approxi-

mately 12,000 acres are owned by it and approximately

16,000 acres leased from others.

Ill

Plaintiffs C. Everette Salyer and Fred Salyer are cit-

izens of the State of California, are landowners in

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, and are mem-

bers of the Board of Directors of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District. Plaintiffs C. Everette Salyer and

Fred Salyer own 320 acres of land in the District as

tenants in common.

; IV

Plaintiff Lawrence Ellison is a citizen of the State of

California, a resident of Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

age District, and a registered | voter. He does not own

any land therein.

Vv

Plaintiff Harold Shawl is a citizen of the State of Cali-

fornia and a landowner in defendant Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District. Plaintiff Shawl owns a one-half

undivided interest in 65 acres of land in the District.

“the boundaries of said defendant District is attached

"hereto and marked Exhibit 1.

5 VII

~ Section 41000 of the California Water Code is ap-

Plicable to water storage districts, and at all times ma-

terial herein it has provided, and now provides, as fol-

“Only the holders of title to land are entitled to

* vote at a general election.”

VIII

__ Section 41001 of the California Water Code at all

times material herein has provided, and now provides,

as follows:

“= > “Bach voter may vote in each precinct in which

=)» any of the land owned by him is situated and may

-}.., cast one vote for each one hundred dollars ($100),

_).._,0r fraction thereof, worth of his land, exclusive of

improvements, minerals, and mineral rights there-

in, in the precinct.”

ere IX

At all times since its formation in i926, such elec-

8 as have been held in Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

District have been conducted pursuant’ to and in

ordance with said Sections 41000 and 41001 of the

ifornia Water Code, that is to say, only landowners

ee io

\

—s—

been alloted ‘onb-vowe for eth $100 or fraction. theren

worth of his land.

x

The J. G. Boswell Company, the largest landowner

in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, owns ap-

proximately 40 percent of the land therein. The said The

J. G. Boswell Company at-all times herein mentioned

has controlled, and it now controls, Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District by election of six of the eleven

directors, all six of whom receive salaries from The

J. G. Boswell Company independent of their compensa-

tion as officers and directors of the District. The Presi-

dent, Vice President, and Secretary of the District all

are Boswell stockholders who receive regular compensa-

tion from said company.

XI

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District was divided

into eleven divisions at the time of its formation in

1926, and the same eleven divisions are in effect to-

day, there having been no change of the division bound-

aries for over 40 years. The division boundaries and

the numbers assigned to said divisions, are correctly and

accurately shown on the map attached hereto as Ex-

hibit 1. There are seventeen separate landowners in

Division 1, forty-one in Division 2, thirteen in Division

3, one hundred and ten in Division 4, eleven in Division

5, nineteen in Division 6, seventy-nine in Division 7,

one hundred in Division 8, five in Division 9, four in

Division 10, and twelve in Division 11. There are ap

proximately 40 residents of the District.

:

Be

The J. G. Boswell Company maintains its control of

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District by keeping

~ imforee the division boundaries which have existed

' Since the said District was formed in 1926. The sizes

of the several divisions, and the assessed valuation of

_ the lands therein, are grossly disproportionate. Division

-« 4, tepresented by plaintiff Fred Salyer, contains fifty-

_ two sections of land, while Division 10, represented by

_ & vice president of the said The J. G. Boswell Com-

_ pany, A. L. Vandergriff, contains only thirteen and

- one-half sections. The assessed valuation of the lands in

- said Division 4 in 1967 was $2,047,620, while the

“assessed valuation of the lands in said Division

10 was only $624,840. Plaintiffs are informed

and believe, and upon such information and belief allege,

that the assessed valuations of the lands in Division

_ 4 and Division 10 are at the present time similarly dis-

" proportionate. Although required by law until 1969

to be redivisioned following adoption of a project, and

“fot less than 60 days prior to the next general election

_ thereafter to be held in the District, Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District has not been redivisioned in

40 years. :

PNo general water storage district election has been

helc in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District for

jer twenty-three years, although such elections are re-

red by statute to be held on the first Tuesday in

‘evruary in each odd-numbered year. In 1967 plaintiffs

iain

and certain other minority ‘landowners petitioned for-a

qi citonpuant to Scion 41550 ofthe Cl

fornia Water Code, which election was held» May 23,

1967. But there no redivisioning prior to said

election; ‘there ‘has been no redivisioning since said

election, and there was no general water storage dis-

trict election the first Tuesday in February of 1969, as

required by Section 41300 of the California Water

Code. :

XIV

Defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District

is a goveramental entity. There is attached hereto and

marked Exhibit 2 an opinion of the Attorney General

of the State of California that Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District is a political subdivision of the State

of.California. As such political subdivision Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District has at all times herein

mentioned exercised, and it now exercises, the powers

of taxation and eminent. domain, and it issues bonds

which are liens upon all the lands in the District. The

said District.as a governmental entity has applied for

disaster relief from. the Office of Emergency Planning

pursuant to Sections 1855 ff, of Title 42 ofthe United

States Code, and has been granted public moneys of

the United States in response to such application. The

defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District as

a public entity has sought permission to intervene as

parens patriae ina case pending in this Court where

in the. United States seeks to impose acreage restrictions

on lands served by, Pine Flat Reservoir, and this Court

_. The lands in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

tet lie in the southern portion of Kings County, Cali-

. and are fertile and highly productive. The said

3 ands are subject, however, to cycles of flood and

: drought, and the repelling of water in times of flood

2 and the securing of water in times of drought are

“among the most important functions which can be

_ performed by any governmental agency insofar as the

residents and landowners of Tulare Lake Basin Water

: Storage District are concerned. Plaintiff Ellison alleges

“that his residence is in the North Central area of Tulare

om Basin and that floodwaters are now standing

: t the North Central Levee, which levee protects

“fhe North Central area from flooding. Plaintiffs, includ-

ing plaintiff Ellison, allege that those floodwaters,

which reached a height of 192.5 feet U.S.G.S. datum

$ 1 1969, would have been three feet lower had Tulare

‘Lake Basin Water Storage District exercised the flood

=eontrol rights and powers which it possesses. Plain-

is allege that the Board of Directors of the defendant

trict, controlled and dominated by The J. G. Bos-

well Company, failed and refused during the 1969

“ood to take action to insure the use of Buena Vista

3 ake e for the storing of floodwaters on the Kern River,

Wi said Lake had always been used in the past, and

hese plaintiffs allege that such failure and refusal was

wa, eee

ootasioned by The J.G. Boswell Company's possession

of Buena Vista Lake under a long term agricultural

XVI

The actions and positions of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District are of immediate, direct and

vital importance to every resident of the District, are

of immediate, direct ‘and vital importance to every

landowner in the District, and are of immediate, direct

and vital importance to every lessee of land in the Dis-

trict. Farmers who lease rathér than own land are not

accorded the privilege of voting in the District’s clec-

tions, although the District’s functions in flood control

and water matters are of immediate, direct and vital

importance to such lessees. Plaintiff Salyer Land Com-

pany has leased all the lands of Kings County Develop

ment Company, a total of approximately 5,000 acres,

for a period of 15 years, and plaintiff Salyer Land

Company is in podsession of said lands, actively farms

them, and pursuant to the terms of its lease with the

landowner, Kings County Development Company, pays

the taxes and assessments on said lands. Salyer Land

Company nevertheless derives no voting right whatever

by virtue of the said lease, or by virtue of any other

of the lands it has leased in Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District. :

XVI

a eer

years in the Tulare Lake area. He has held positions

of responsibility in farming companies throughout that

aK Sa

me, and is familiar with the problems of water man-

pment and flood control with which Tulare Lake

isin, Water Storage District is concerned. Plaintiff El-

n desires to vote in Tulare Lake Basin Water

‘Borage District elections, but he will not be permitted

XVIII

ea * Plaintifts allege that Section 41000 and 41001 of -

: “the California Water Code permitting only landowners

to voté in water storage district elections, and per-

~ mitting each landowner one vote for each $100 or frac-

“tion thereof worth of his land, invidiously discriminate

"against residents who are not landowners, invidiously

‘Wiscriminate against small landowners, invidiously dis-

’ triminate against all landowners other than the largest,

“the wed The J. G. Boswell Company, invidiously dis-

against farmers who lease rather than own

_ ‘their land, and subject all the residents, landowners

“fad farming operators in Tulare Lake Basin Water

District to the rule of a private corporation.

“Wie J. G. Boswell Company at all times herein men

has made, and it now makes, policy for Tulare

La ¢ Basin Water Storage District, although the presi-

SL ct-tin-wiid The J. €.-ieowch Company io coe «

directo of the said Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

and the headquarters of the said The J. G.

Bo Company is in Los Angeles rather than in

ings County.

Asin anteee J pe au v MIX it npimnia ‘

Plaintiffs ‘allege ‘that ‘the said Sections 41000 and

41001) of the California: Water Code invidiously dis

ctiminate’ against plaintiffs and others similarly situ-

ated; ‘deprive plaintiffs and others similarly situated of

their rights, pfivileges, and immunities under the equal

protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

and that said Sections 41000 and 41001 of the Cali-

fornia Water Code are unconstitutional and void.

xx

Defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

41000: and 41001 ‘of the California Water Code, and

unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, defendant

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District will continue

to enforce, execute and administer said statutes, and

will continue to deprive, as it has deprived in the

past, plaintiffs and others similarly situated with them,

of their rights under the equal protection and due

process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States.

XxI

The damage and injury done to plaintiffs by reason

of their being deprived of the foregoing rights is con

tinuing and irreparable, and there is no adequate

remedy at law.

pias

EFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

|. Convene a statutory court of three judges pur-

int to Section 2284 of Title 28 of the United States

‘for the purpose of hearing and determining this

2. 2, Adjudge and declare Sections 41000 and 41001

f if the California Water Code to be in violation of the

"Constitution of the United States, and therefore void.

r 3 . Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions re-

_ straining and enjoining the defendant Tulare Lake Basin

| Water Storage District, and its agents, servants, and em-

“ ployees, from enforcing, executing, administering or in

“ay manner giving effect to Sections 41000 and 41001

7 of the California Water Code.

ee

= 4. Require defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

° District to submit a plan whereby all residents of

oa fulare Lake Basin Water Storage District will be al-

“lowed to vote, without regard to land ownership, or in

B alternative, a plan whereby all residents, lessees,

d landowners will be allowed to vote, whether or

t such residents be landowners, whether or not such

8 be landowners and whether or not such land-

. a hers be residents, but with provisions that no resident,

_ Iesse see or landowner shall in any event or circumstance

_yMave more than one vote, however small or however

reat his landholdings may be.

7 5. Require defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

a ge District to submit a plan whereby all elections shall

sien

6. Require defendant Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

age District to hold a general water storage district clec

tion not later than the time set forth in Section 41300

of the California Water Code, that is to say, not later

than the first Tuesday in February of 1971, or at such

earlier time as the Court may direct.

7. Grant plaintiffs all such other and further and

general relief as the circumstances of this case may re

quire or to equity shall seem meet. :

Dated this 5th day of May, 1970.

C. RAY ROBINSON

THOMAS KEISTER GREER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

T LISIHXa

Pe wens tae wwree Mee tite

Se eed oe rd

Shee

r “ede 1 ys?

- —

oA 3 s Seren Sed auc beat Sia Ba

° ' : - —+ ee

4 Ss |= "ia n vem I = | A a * ; ’

s = ' “f 4 - 2 + & 2 ed ~ jPorion lou aed * rn

te =f... 49- eee Eee er ee Oe al a

: a te si# edeirle viele Pcie [teti-|2

i~ * . - ;

-- ae § -—- ee — I L.-J

ose : PP We OTP PE ewe, F 72,7 iF

7 — -{F.-{ — +p fb t 4

r FTP. Flee FL PP lee, F se..F }*

< nt Pr == 3 i -

~ | a

i. a. ee

. j Bed

te

.

2

11s BE AMS AR

a! te

=

o

4,

Re

as

>

~

. :

i.

Si afaltlesepe le FA =|: |s

pages’ pe mane We

- -—«* eon ee ats tea” Fe “f, bal * o a

x ote se: #1 ba Ld

nem Ss ee AS Ga ee eee! BS

s at ee@e s) = @ a) @ _i* ny 3 -

Sees =f 2 ‘f + OB Se HPT tee eR a ee

Sk St POS KNB rs ; - < =e é me

PUES SSS eatiae tc ~ Sal SS aA BAS RS ~ © See eke pees see :

— e

EXHIBIT 2

eo (Seal)

wee OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ae Department of Justice

State Building, San Francisco 94102

February 20, 1969

Mr T. P. Stivers, Executive Secretary

California Districts Securities Commission

120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1370

San Francisco, California 94104

Re: Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District—Federal

Disaster Grant

Dear Mr. Stivers:

~ This is in answer to your request for our opinion on

“he status of the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis

“ttict as a “political subdivision” of the State of Califor-

pia. I have concluded that water storage districts are

considered political subdivisions of the State.

3 _ The California Water Storage District Law includes

a ection titled “Nature of Districts Formed Under This

Division.” This is Water Code section 39060 which

" provides as follows:

be “The districts formed pursuant to this division

are districts of the nature of irrigation, reclama-

tion, or drainage districts in. respect to all matters

contemplated in the provisions of the constitution

of the State of California relating to irrigation,

reclamation, or drainage.”

te

oe

—18— —

Thus the conclusions reached as to the nature of ir

rigation districts would also. apply to water storage dis

- tricts, and it is well settled that irrigation districts are

considered political subdivisions afid agencies of the

State. See Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v, Ohrt, 31

Cal.App.2d 619, 621 (1939) and cases cited: therein.

The phrase “political subdivision” also appears in

several other California codes. It is significant that

these codes define the use of the phrase to specifically

include districts such as a water storage district. See,

e.g., Labor Code § 1721; Military & Veterans Code

§ 1260; Public Utilities Code § 1401.

Very truly yours, |

THOMAS C. LYNCH

Attorney General

By /s/ Richard I. Gilbert

RICHARD I. GILBERT

Deputy Attorney General

RIG:dl

cc: James G. McCain, Esq.

Carlos S. Fowler, Esq.

renee

: —19—

re of Motion and Motion of Defendant to Dismiss.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, August

, 1970, at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as coun-

“gel can be heard, defendant will move the above-en-

‘Wled court in the Courtroom of the Honorable M. D.

“Crocker, United States Courthouse, Fresno, California,

for an order dismissing the Complaint.

|. Said motion is made upon the ground that the Com-

‘“Plaint fails to state a cause over w court of the

‘United States has jurisdiction and all grounds

“Slated in defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Av-

‘thorities served and filed concurrently herewith. Said

‘motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, upon de-

‘fendant’s said Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

4 nd upon all of the documents and records on file in

‘the above-entitled action.

‘Dated: June 24, 1970.

DONNELLY, CLARK, CHASE &

HAAKH

ERNEST M. CLARK, JR.

NEWELL & CHESTER

ROBERT M, NEWELL

By /s/ Ernest M. Clark, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant

—20—

Original Filed: Nov. 13, 1970.

aReschgans States ee ee

of California, .

~ Salyer. Land. Company, a California corporation, C.

Everette Salyer; Fred Salyer; Lawrence Ellison; and

Harold Shawl, Plaintiffs, vs. Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District, a public district, Defendant. Civil

No. F-414.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was - submitted on

briefs without argument; C. Ray. Robinson and Thomas

Keister Greer, appearing for plaintiffs; and Ernest M.

Clark and Robert M. Newell, appearing for defendant.

*Plaintiffs’ action is authorized by Section 1983 of

Title 42 of U. S: Code, and alleges that plaintiffs are

being denied constitutional rights under color of State

law, particularly sections 41000 and 41001 of the

Water Code of California which permits only land-

owners to vote, and give them one vote for each $100

worth of land.

Plaintiffs complaint presents a substantial constitu-

tional question as to whether the sections of the Cali-

fornia Water Code are in conflict with the United

States Constitution.

Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied

and a three-judge court is ordered convened pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

DATED: November 13, 1970.

M. D. CROCKER

United States District Judge

efendar Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

(“District” ), for its answer to the Complaint

Bers. 2 follows:

n of this Court on the statutory provisions stated

fagraph I of the Complaint, but except as so ad-

ed eeeenes cach end every allegation. in said pare-

2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to

liariesise dace

Se 7 Paragraph II of the Complaint, except

s that plaintiff, Salyer Land Company, is a Cali-

om Sapa amerlonertbeage it owns and leases con-

erable acreage within the District which it farms.

~ Admits the allegations of paragraphs Itt, IV,

cd adie Hales dncihotgs ac teetone

it to form a belief as to the truth of the follow-

gations: (1) that plaintiffs, C. Everette Salyer

Fre i Salyer, are members of the Board of Directors

the District. In this connection, alleges that neither

said plaintiffs has attended any meeting of the

ird , either a special meeting or a regular monthly

ng from and after March 4, 1969; and (2) that

iff, Lawrence Ellison, is a resident of the District

tis informed and believes that plaintiff,

yrenc € Ellison, is temporarily occupying a’ mobile

me arked within the North Central Reclamation

ae, me

of the State of California:which maintains the so-called

North Central Levee which protects the lands of that

X of the Complaint, except admits that the J. G. Bos

well Company is the largest landowner, in the District

and that, as a landowner, it has voted in elections

held by the District pursuant to the California Water

Storage District Law. Further admits that four of the

eleven Directors of the District are employed by and

receive compensation from J. G. Boswell Company.

One additional Director of the eleven receives a nomi-

nal monthly consulting fee from the J. G. Boswell

Company. Further admits that the President (one of

the five Directors above mentioned), Vice President

(one of the five Directors above mentioned) and Secre-

tary of the District are stockholders of the J. G. Bos

well Company. and that the Secretary who is an at-

torney practicing law in Corcoran, California, is paid

a small monthly retainer for his services.

5. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph

XI of the Complaint, except denies knowledge or in-

formation: sufficient to form a belief as to the precise

number of separate landowners in each division of the

District as of this date or the number of residents of the

District. Admits that as of May 23, 1967, the num

ber of landowners in each: division was as alleged. In

this connection, alleges that many landowners own pat-

cels of approximately one acre. each which are leased

to large landowners. and operators such as the Salyer

Land Company, and. many: of these landowners have

granted: proxies to their lessees, permitting the lessees

to vote for directors of their choice.

(6. Denies cach and every allegation contained in

pagraphs: XII, XIV, XV,:XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX,

yand XCXT, and each of them, except as hereinafter

Phe District. encompasses approximately 193,000

}in the Tulare Lake Basin, which is a closed de-

ssion,. a sump with a bottom elevation of 175 feet

d a.top of about 195 feet. Water which flows down

t flow out. The principal tributaries bringing water

_the basin are the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern

ers. In some years the flow of water is large and

_#lake is formed in the basin. In other years the basin

ip relatively dry. At present, approximately 44,200

~getes of some of the most productive land of the basin

¢ under water and have been since the flood of

nation districts created under California law, have

vee gt pedals Sauaniecnge gy ti

oad ee Sou abeted aeie ick io

pe Gry. years. lerigation of the basin. land

made possible by water derived from water rights

by the District, by water contracts executed by the

ict, by some landowners pumping from ground

» by some landowners’ ownership of stock in

if water companies holding water rights in Kings

; and by using any other water which flows into

water problems have in many me been con-

rk resulting in successful crops. In other years,

*s 5 useful only for agriculture. ‘It is essentially uninhab-

pm, eae

ited. The District provides no public services such as

schools, housing, transportation, utilities, roads, or any-

thing-else'of the type ordinarily operated and financed

by a municipal body. .

ed at large to represent the District.

At the present time each of the eleven divisions is

represented by a landowner or the representative of a

landowner, and the terms of office for the following

directors will terminate on the first Tuesday in March

of 1971:

Cecil Howe — - Division 2

Fred Salyer — Division 4

James B. Fisher — Division 6

E. E. Anderson, Jr. — Division 7

C. Everette Salyer — Division 11

The sizes of the eleven districts are today different

Division 4, represented by plaintiff, Fred Salyer, com

tains approximately fifty-two sections of land; and Di-

vision 10, represented by A. L. Vandergriff, a Vice

ena

sident of J. G. Boswell Company, contains approxi-

stely thirteen and one-half sections. Division 11, repre-

d by plaintiff, C. Everette Salyer, contains approxi-

ten and three-quarter sections. The assessed

tions of these three divisions were, respectively,

047,620, $624,840, and $539,320.

District is required to hold a general water stor-

district election on the first Tuesday in February

“81971 to choose a successor to each of the above

‘famed officers whose term expires (Water Code Sec-

4 era If by the fifty-ninth day prior to the

--dect on only one person has been nominated for the of-

> to be filled, or no one has been nominated, then

‘the board may order that an election not be held for

h office and request the Department of Water Re-

rces to appoint such person as the Department shall

st. (Water Code Section 41307).

he last election for directors for the divisions of the

rict was held on May 23, 1967, at which time eleven

sectors were selected, of which eight are still in office.

dowe, C. Everette Salyer, and James B. Fisher were

sem

4 ft ment of Water Resources upon the endorsement

“fad recommendation of the Board then existing. At the

ction, Kings County Development Company, as a

and lessor to Salyer Land Company, cast its

lling shareholder of Salyer Land Company.

ince the formation of the District, it has never been

fivisioned. Prior to July 1, 1965, the responsibility

E any redivisioning rested with the Department of

ic Works. On July 1, 1965, Section 41152 of the

Mer Code was amended to permit the Board to re-

6

division so that: the divisions shall be as nearly equal to

the number of holders:of title to land entitled to vote

ina general: election as’ may: be conveniently possible,

On: August’29, 1970, Section 41152 was repealed, and

at this time there is no statutory provision concerned

with redivisioning the District: No’ petition or applica-

tion. has ever. been received by the Board seeking a

redivisioning of the District.

The primary. function of. the, officers of the District is

to.carry out the projects of the District which must be

approved. first. by both a majority of landowners and

landowners owning a majority of the assessed value of

the entire. District and then by the District Securities

Commission of the State of California. The District has

had only.four projects in all of its history. Each of the

District's projects dealt with water. and related matters,

including the storage, conservation and diversion of

water, as to which the State of California has a com-

pelling interest. _

The first General District Project was approved by

the voters of the. District on December 6, 1927. This

project contemplated the acquisition by the District of

Fighteen sections of land a8 a, water storage reservoir

the return to the basin of waters flowing to the north in

Kings River, levee and channel improvement, and the

like. The estimated cost of the project was $1,608,

434.85. However, because of an adverse decision in the

courts regarding the north flowing water and the de

state of the economy, very little of this project

was ever implemented. 2s

General District. Project No. 2 was approved by the

voters on August 1, 1961. This project cancelled cet-

tain outmoded or uncompleted portions of Project No.

1. It also had as its purpose the establishment of rights

eae, Sele

‘the District to water in the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and

‘Rien Rivers and participation in storage of water in the

— voirs on Pine Flat, Terminus, Success, and Isabella

Rive FE eepectively. The total cost of the project was

d at $2,720,000.00.

e J District Project No. 3 was approved by the

on September 15, 1964. It was really a modi-

ion complete in itself of General District Project

2 Its purpose was the establishment of water

s in and the participation in reservoir storage at the

rivers referred to in the preceding paragraph. The

of this project was estimated at $2,795,000.00.

eneral District Project No. 4 was approved by the

3 on July 11, 1967. Its purpose was to fund the

truction of two laterals from the California State

educt to the basin for the purpose of transporting

r purchased by the District from the State of Cali-

a to the Tulare Lake Basin. This project also con-

lated the construction of an office building for the

trict. The estimated cost of this project was $1,-

0,000.00.

The two laterals have been constructed at a cost of

penately $2,500,000.00. The construction of the

be building has been deferred.

3 & The District, on behalf of its landowners, has filed

etitions with the office of Emergency Planning pur-

a oe to Sections 1855 ff. of Title 42 of the United

ates Code, and in response to such petitions the

flited States has granted certain moneys to the Dis-

et. Further, the District has intervened in that cer-

n action pending in this Court entitled United States

are Lake Canal Company, in which the United

68 seeks to impose acreage limitations on waters re-

from storage behind Pine Flat Dam.

£,

/ —-28-—

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE —

“92° ‘Phe Complaint’ fails to ‘state a cause over which

a court of the United States has jurisdiction.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. Neither Section 41000, nor ‘Section 41001, nor

any other ! ection of the California Water Storage Dis

trict Law is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to

the law of the United States. Therefore, any claim of

plaintiffs, or any of them, should be asserted in the

courts of the State of California. .

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE :

9... On March 27, 1969, plaintiff Salyer Land Com-

pany commenced an action in the Superior Court of

Kings County, State of California, entitled Salyer Land

-Company y. Robinson, et al., being number 20056 in

the files of said Court. Each of the defendants in said

action is a director of the District, and the claim of

the plaintiff in that action against said defendants is

the same claim as asserted in the Complaint herein.

Said action is still pending.

-. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that judgment be

entered in its favor and against any claim of plaintiffs.

NEWELL & CHESTER

ROBERT M. NEWELL

» DONNELLY, CLARK, CHASE &

ERNEST M. CLARK, JR.

By /s/ Ernest M. Clark, Jr.

Ernest M. Clark, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant.

[ Affidavit of service omitted in printing]

a —29—

letter of Counsel to Clerk April 19, 1971.

) Law Offices

~~ ‘THOMAS KEISTER GREER

» «Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

ed States District Court

) O Street

sno, California 93721

RE: Salyer Land Company v. Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District, USDC No.

No. F-414

-. 28 U.S.C. Section 2284, dealing with procedure be-

fore three-judge courts, provides in part as follows:

“(2) If the action involves the enforcement,

-. operation or execution of State statutes or State

_. administrative ‘orders, at least five days notice of

4 \of the hearing shall be given to the governor and

attorney general of the State.”

oy. The instant action involves the enforcement, opera-

_ tion and execution of State statutes, and notice of the

: now set for June 16, 17 and 18, 1971 should be

hh en to the Governor and Attorney General of Cali-

“take it that you are the proper person to give

: notice, from the later provision of Section 2284:

“Sych notice shall be given by registered mail

“or by certified mail by the clerk and shall be com-

plete on the mailing thereof.”

~ With kindest regards, I am

a

Please be advised that the above-entitled action has

been set for trial on June 16, 17 & 18, 1971 befor

a rs yx ye p Hl Lees one 3

dered convened.

‘Yours truly,

D. D. BUTLER

Deputy Clerk

——

’

i

From Court to Counsel May 10, 1971.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of California

ie Fresno, California 93721

ir. C. Ray Robinson

Mr. Thomas K. Greer

: ir. Robert M. Newell

‘Mr. Ernest M. Clark

“wentiemen: .

Re: Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin

a Water Storage District, No. .F-414 Civ.

Bilities of submitting this case to the three-judge court

an agreed statement of facts. In view of the request

tor admissions recently filed, I would appreciate an at-

pt’ by all counsel to agree on the facts.

ase advise me of your progress.

« Very truly yours,

/s/ M. D. Crocker

M. D. CROCKER

% Honorable James R. Browning

® Honorable Robert H. Schnacke

3 2 Stak a8 |

DOWNEY, ‘BRAND, SEYMOUR & ROHWER

1007 Seventh Street

Sacramento, California. 95814

| Telephone 441-0131 3

The Honorable M. D, Crocker

Judge of the U. S, District Court

GY alg et al. vs. Tulare

"Lake Basin Water Storage District —No. F414

Dear Judge Cracker: ;

As I told you,.on the telephone,..we represent the

California’ Central Valleys Flood Control Association,

an’ association of reclamation districts in California.

These districts all vote on the same basis as the de-

fendant in this action, and accordingly the decision

rendered herein will have drastic and far reaching ¢f-

fects upon all reclamation: districts, in: California. Thus

the Association hereby: seeks the’ Court's permission to

file an amicus Curiae brief in this action.

The Association has previously sought and obtain-

ed the consent of the parties to do so.

It is understood that the trial has been set for June

16, and if the Court’s permission is obtained, the As-

sociation will have its brief filed as promptly thereafter

as possible.

—33—.

nt. the Court elects to permit us to file a

f herein, we enclose an Ex. Parte Order for the

“Th an you very much for your attention.

DOWNEY, BRAND, SEYMOUR &

ROHWER

By

Joseph S. Genshlea

onhjane.

_ © Better From Counsel to Court June 4, 1971.

NEWELL & CHESTER

650 South Grand Avenue—Suite 500

Los Angeles, California 90017

» 629-1231 Area Code 213

Honorable M. D. Crocker -

United States District Court,

Eastern District of California

Fresno, California 93721

Re: Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District—Civil No. F-414

Dear Judge Crocker:

In your letter of May 10, 1971 to all counsel you

requested that we report on the progress made in at

tempting to agree on the facts in the captioned matter.

Mr. Clark and I have been conferring with Mr.

Greer in the past few days toward reaching an agree

ment on the facts, reserving objections as to relevancy

in accordance with your letter of June 1, 1971. I am

pleased to report that we have made considerable prog-

ress in this regard.

Mr. Greer has delivered to the undersigned a draft

statement of facts that the plaintiff proposes to place

before the Court; in turn, we have given Mr. Greer 4

statement of facts that the defendant proposes to place

before the Court. For the most part, we have been

able to agree on all of the facts set forth in these

statements.

—\ =

>. the Court's approval, we suggest that each

“Teatty file with the Court a statement of facts, reserving

he other side 48 hours within which to deny the

M of any.specific fact. At the present time, we

not contemplate that there will be any denials of

type. These statements should be filed with ‘the

rt by Wednesday, June 9th, and any denials

uld be filed with the Court by Friday, June 11th.

is also contemplated that we will have a joint

“Whedule ‘of exhibits, which schedule, together with

“the exhibits, will be delivered to Mr. Glover.

have dictated this letter in the presence of Mr.

st, with whom we have been meeting this past week.

a 4

__./8/ Robert M. Newell

Robert M. Newell

=)

Letter From Court to Counsel June 7, 1971.

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~~" Bastern District of California

Fresno, California 93721

Mr. Robert M. Newell

Attorney at Law

650 South Grand Ave. (Suite 500)

Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Newell: _

Re: “Salyer Land Co. vy. Tulare

Lake Basin Water Storage

“District, No. F-414 Civ.

I agree with the procedure outlined in your letter

of June 4, 1971.

Also, I wish to thank all counsel for cooperating

with each other and the court.

| Very truly yours,

M. D. CROCKER

cc C. Ray Robinson, Esq. o

Thomas Keister Greer, Esq.

Ernest M. Clark, Jr., Esq.

er

DENSLOW GREEN, attorney at law, duly admitted

actice before the above entitled court, does peti-

| the court to appear in the above entitled action

‘amicus.curiae on behalf of the Irrigation Districts of

‘State-of California, and in support thereof alleges

__ That the IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ASSOCIA-

IN OF CALIFORNIA is a non-profit California cor-

ition whose members consist of over 250 districts

ged in the distribution of water throughout the

ite of California.

That said Association and its member districts

fe vitally concerned with the voting procedures pres-

itly adopted by state statute which limit or restrict the

fight to vote in special districts in connection with

3. That one of the principal issues in the above

titled action to be determined by this court involves

nc ipivedétiit, voting qualifications and the applica-

in of the “one man, one vote” rule.

4. Riis i <u as See Sandenies of ths Ascent

at its views, representing the view of most of the dis-

bts involved in water distribution in the State of Cali-

fnia, be presented to this court to assist the court in

‘Making its determinations on the issues above set forth.

—38—

WHEREFORE, the undersigned prays that he be al-

lowed to appear as amicus curiae in the above entitled

action and to file such briefs therein as may be allowed

by the court. lis

Dated: June 8, 1971.

/s/ Denslow Green

DENSLOW GREEN

‘The above petition having been duly filed and good

cause appearing therefor, ,

IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that DENSLOW

‘GREEN and he is hereby authorized to appear in the

above entitled action as amicus curiae on behalf of the

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF CALI-

FORNIA. |

Dated: June 9, 1971.

/s/ M.D. Crocker

M. D. CROCKER, Judge

——

—39—

rs PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS.

| ‘a pe Storage District, organized

er the California Water Storage District Law in

"mai age teeny 193,000 acres of land in

are Lake Basin, in Kings and Tulare Counties, Cali-

ia. Tulare Lake Basin is an intensively cultivated a

The. principal streams terminating in Tulare Lake

in are the Kings, Tule, Kaweah and Kern Rivers.

S United States has constructed dams on all four

i » streams, Pine Flat on the Kings in 1954,

ce: on. the Tule in 1961, Terminus on the Kaweah

ee dams, in a. “normal year” as defined by the en-

rand hydrologists in the area,. water does not

= “100 percent year” based upon engineering studies of

“atte: flows throughout the years for which records are

‘be referred to as a “200 per cent year”. For example,

Pd Eeicnmaied to be». “6s percent year” on the

; there has been no flood inflow into Tulare Lake

n in 1971. 1970 was a “79.5 percent year” on the

; there was no flood inflow into Tulare Lake Basin

7 370

& ete a te dee oe major

as discharging into Tulare Lake, Pine Flat on the

tc. sa the Teks. Sermisies on. tis Kanon,

Tyabella on the Ker, there have been only two

—40—

years in which flood waters have entered Tulare Lake

Basin. The first ofthese was. the winter-spring of

1966-67, when a total of 169,752 acre feet of water

entered Tulare Lake, ‘which had been dry since 1959.

The second of these was 1969, when the area expe.

rienced the greatest flood since 1906, and 1,169,900

acre feet of flood water entered Tulare Lake Basin.

Water rose to the height of 192.5 U.S.G.S. datum, and

approximately 88,000 acres of land out’of the 193,

Dee tears ee er ere

‘Evaporation’ and irrigation use -have now reduced

the flooded area to 27,000 ‘acres. Approximately 300,

000. acre feet of the water entering Tulare Lake Basin

in 1969 was from the Kern River. This amount would

have been réduced to approximately 100,000 acre feet

had Buena Vista Lake been used for flood storage.

‘Small floods such as those of 1967 are normally con-

fined ‘to the ‘twelve sections spoken of as “the basin”;

the aerial photograph dated May, 1967 [Ex. 1] shows

water entering this twelve section area.

Tulare Lake Basin is divided into districts and areas

by large levees, erected by various reclamation districts

or by private landowners. The location of these levees

is as shown on the map entitled “Tulare Lake Basin

Topography” dated June, 1969 [Ex. 2]. A map show-

ing the: boundaries of the several reclamation districts in

hace fe Basin is Exhibit 3. The largest of these

ees, =the South Central Levee, the North Central

Fic MS el iilns Vovke iad the eccis dec Lovee,

have a height of approximately 196 feet U.S.GS.

datum, and they withstood the 1969 flood. In the

1969 flood the levee of Tulare Lake Reclamation Dis

trict No. 749, which extends from the mouth of the

Kings ‘River along the north bank of the Tule river

ten miles, was cut on February 25, 1969 to save

ie levee, and to provide for controlled rather than un-

plied flooding of the lands protected by that levee.

Lovelace Levee failed on March 18, 1969.

1969 flood was the greatest runoff in the record-

ry of the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern Rivers.

a@ 261.3 percent year on the Kings, a 356.9 per-

year on the Kaweath, a 376 percent year on the

and a 451 percent year on the Kern. In 1969

from the Kern River had not reached Tulare

Basin since 1952, which was prior to the com-

of Isabella Dam on the Kern River. The location

lla reservoir and Buena Vista Lake are shown

map “Kern River Service Areas” which is Ex-

» minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors

are Lake Basin Water Storage District held April

2, state in part as follows:

- “Consulting Engineer Harding, in respect of con-

ditions on Kern River during the current season,

discussed with the Directors the protection that

might be had against floods from that stream by

» the full use of Buena Vista Lake reservoir. He said

that he understood the landowners in that area

_ were planning to store considerable water in Buena

Vista Lake and not to use the Lake area, in 1952,

for farming. He thought that Tulare Lake Basin

“Water Storage District should keep watch on what

was done there, to see that Buena Vista Lake

i was fully used to store water from Kern River,

; 4 - because under normal, natural conditions on Kern

# River a great deal of flood water from that River

BP ‘would flow into Buena Vista Lake. Finally,

Director Stone moved and Director Salyer seconded

oe. anes

- the motion, and thé: motion carried unanimously

someone aeneaeeren Sines

“ “RESOLUTION,

“RESOLVED: That the Engineers of Tulare

Lake Basin Water Storage District be and they are

hereby instructed to keep a careful watch on

flood flows in Kern River during the current sea-

,son to see that Buena Vista Lake takes the full

amount of water which properly should flow into

| it and there be stored and that, if such storage

_. does not appear to be taking place, the President

of the District be and he is hereby authorized to

write a letter in the name of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District, to Buena Vista Water Stor-

age District and the owners of land in Buena

Vista Lake informing them that Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District and the owners of land with-

in it insist that such storage’ of flood flows of

- Kern River shall be mad¢ in Buena Vista Lake and

that’ if they ate not made ‘the responsible pat-

ties will be held liable for any damages which

may arise in Tulare Lake Basin’ by the discharge

ito such Basin of waters which should have been

stored in Buena Vista Lake.”

The “consulting engineer Harding” referred to in these

minutes was S, .T. Harding, late Professor of Engineer-

ing at the University of California, an authority on

water matters in the San Joaquin Valley, and a cor

sultant to the defendant District from the time of its

formation.

On: April 1, 1052) the Board-of Directors: included,

among others, L. T-. Robinson, Albert Armor, F. G.

Sherrill and James G. McCain. Pursuant to the. resolu-

“Win'ot April 1, 1952, Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

ee District gave Buena Vista Water Storage District

| ed the owners of land in Buena Vista Lake written

“wotice in accordance with the resolution above quoted,

ge notices were acquiesced in by those receiving

a. Buena Vista Lake, including Cell 3 thereof, was

{ with the flood waters of the Kern River in 1952.

. om. Lake Basin Water Storage District’s letter of

Peptember 23, 1953 signed by Louis T. Robinson, its

ident, is Exhibit 5.

he J. G. Boswell Company began to farm Buena

a Lake under a long term lease in 1956, and has

ned it ever since.

. here was a meeting of the Board of Directors of

“Whe defendant district on March 4, 1969 with ten di-

‘“Wectors present, the eleventh director, the late Jack Gib-

» 1, being deceased.

“At the meeting of March 4, 1969 Consolidated Recla-

. fation District No. 812 presented the following resolu-

4 . to the Board of Directors of Tulare Lake Basin

= “WHERBAS, the Corps of Engineers manual

** for Isabella Project contains as its criteria for flood

control operation, provision for the flood waters

of Kern River to flow into Buena Vista Lake to

the extent of its inlet capacity for Schedule III

= feleases, and to the extent of said Buena Vista

~ Lake’s inlet capacity for Schedule IV releases; and

— . . WHEREAS, the said critiera for flood control

operation provide that ‘When there is a reasonable

chance of having to make releases to Tulare Lake

.in the foreseeable future, adequate opportunity

Should be provided for filling Buena Vista Lake.’,

ici cais

- » NOW: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by

the Board of Trustees of Consolidated Reclama-

_ ition District No. 812, that, this District calls upon

. the Board of Directorsiof Tulare Lake Basin Water

‘Storage District to take action in the current flood

emergen¢y to protect the works and lands in Tu

lare Laké Basin from the flood waters of the Kern

River, andto attempt by, the requisite notices, and

‘by legal action if necessary, to see to it that all of

Buena Vista Lake be used to hold the flood waters

of the Kern River to the full extent of that Lake's

jimlet capacity before such flood waters are turned

north toward Tulare Lake.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should

the Board of Directors of Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District fail or refuse’ to serve the req

uisite notices, and to file legal action if necessary,

Tha cach ibd chery Dolieor"ob WAY ake Basa

‘Water Storage ‘District be placed on notice that

he owes a fiduciary obligation arising from the

office held by such Director, and that Consoli-

@dated Reclamation District No. 812 will hold him

personally and pecuniarily responsible for any and

all damages sustained by this District as a result of

such failure or refusal to act.”

At the meeting of March 4, 1969 North Central Con-

solidated Reclamation District No. 2071 presented the

‘following resolution to the Board of Directors of Tulare

Lake Basin Water Storge District»

2 WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers manual for

“Ysabella ‘Projects contains as its criteria for flood

control operation provision for the flood waters of

a Kern River to flow into Buena Vista Lake to the

“extent of its inlet capacity for Schedule III r

eosin

and to the extent of said Buena Vista

») Lake's inlet capacity for Schedule IV releases; and

» WHEREAS, the said criteria for flood control

Operation provide that “When there is a reason-

able chance of having to make releases to Tulare

» Lake in the foreseeable future, adequate opportu-

is "nity mould be provided for filling Buena Vista

_ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by

_the Board of Trustees of North Central Consoli-

dated ‘Reclamation District No. 2071, that this Dis-

_ trict calls upon the Board of Directors of Tulare

- Lake Basin Water Storage District to take action in

_ the current flood emergency to protect the works

and lands in Tulare Lake Basin from the flood

_ waters of the Kern River, and to attempt by the

" ‘Tequisite notices, and by legal action if necessary,

_ to see to it that all of Buena Vista Lake be used

* to hold the flood waters of the Kern River to the

~ full extent of that Lake’s inlet capacity before such

_ flood waters are turned north toward Tulare

; ‘ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should

* the Board of Directors of Tulare Lake Basin

_ Water Storage District fail or refuse to serve the

_ fequisite notices, and to file action if necessary,

". that each and every Director of said Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District be placed on notice

that he owes a fiduciary obligation, arising from

© the office held by such Director, and that North

_ Central Consolidated Reclamation District No.

11 will hold him personally and pecuniarily re-_

sponsible for any and all damages sustained by

is District as a result of such failure or refusal

vats Was

> At the meeting of March 4, 1969 Wilbur Reclamation

District’ No! 825 ‘presented the following resolution to

yic wn eyeing cope medal

age District?” .

" WHEREAS, & flood eimetgency does now exis

ndangering the levees, works and lands of this

SMe el do eteaNcatlon or Wie flood caer

gency is imminently threatened by the projected

‘flows of flood waters from the Kern River; and

: WHEREAS, this District, acting under author-

~~ ay of law and of its By-Laws, should take all

, feasible action to reduce or to eliminate the threat-

ened flow ro Kern River flood waters into the

— area of the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis

trict wherein the levees, works and lands of this

District are also located, and being now fully ad-

* vised,

7 BE. IT RESOLVED: That this. District make

immediate demand that the directors, officers, at-

torneys and all other appropriate officials of the

said Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District take

__ all necessary steps (including but not limited to

“such action at law as may be necessary) to insure

that said waters of the Kern. River are ponded in

.. Buena Vista Lake, to its full capacity, before any

-guch flood waters be allowed to flow northward

“from Buena Vista Lake toward the Tulare Lake

- ‘Basin; and

ee BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the

, President.and all other officers of the W. H. Wil

‘bur Reclamation District No. 825, be, and they

= hereby are, authorized and directed to take such

_.. further actions as may be expedient or necessary,

a a ae

©) Pia the opinion of the President and the said fur.

Up ther officers of this District, to implement the in-

» tent and purposes of these Resolutions.

WAt the meeting of March 4, 1969 Director Everette

‘Ss lye: moved the following resolution:

» “WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers’ Criteria

for Flood Control Operation of Isabella Project, as

_ issued 17 March 1953 and revised 27 September

1954, provide for the flood flows of the Kern

River to enter Buena Vista Lake to the extent of its

* inlet capacity for both Schedule III and Schedule

_ IV releases, and further provide that ‘When there

» is a reasonable chance of having to make releases

to Tulare Lake in the foreseeable future, adequate

_ opportunity should be provided for filling Buena

y

© Vista Lake’;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

» 1. That Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

» trict serve a demand on the owners and operators

of Buena Vista Lake, and on Buena Vista Water

» Storage District, that the flood waters of the

q Kern River be introduced into Buena Vista Lake,

including Cell 3, thereof, in accordance with the

; Corps of Engineers’ Criteria for’ Flood-Control

- Operation of Isabella Project.

2, That Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

trict forthwith employ counsel to seek injunctive

“Telief against: the owners and operators of Buena

“Vista Lake, and against Buena Vista Water Stor-

age District, should said demand not be imme-

lately complied with.”

wh 8."

i Director: EB. B.: Anderson, Jr., who was an officer of

a ease. Oil Com-

TG

widens 45 G. ‘Boswell beeches president

Leonard L. Evers ‘moved to table the resolution, and

J, G. Boswell Company vice president A: L. Vander.

griff seconded the motion.

With frter reference wo, the meeting of March 4

1969, |

i €a) ible alice: Gcesaieh col oid. taceting kas

been marked as Exhibit 6.

(b) “Erling ‘Kloster, Esq. appeared ‘at that meeting

representing J. G. Boswell Company.

(€), On page 15 of the minutes appears the follow

ing statement:

“Attomey Kloster at this point made dis

¢losures for ‘the ‘record as to the association of six

‘of the ‘directors’ with the J. G: Boswell Company

“indicating in some detail their stock ownership

and ‘employee: affiliations. The six directors were

Armor, Barnes, Evers, Fisher, Robinson and Van-

dergriff. He stated further. that he had advised

these directors they were not disqualified to vote

with references to the Buena Vista matter.”

The disclosures that Mr. Kloster made were as follows:

(i) That Louis T. Robinson, the Chairman of the

Board. was a former employee of the J. G. Boswell

Company, ‘a:present shareholder and that he continue

to participate in certain of the company’s retirement

soiills

i) ‘That Albert Armor was a former employee of

J. G. Boswell Company, that he had a personal

ly relationship with J. G. Boswell II, president

company, and that he was “still an employee

he ‘sense of being employed on a consulting basis

i) That Stanley M. Barnes was a full time

ried ee ee Some: and

The vote on the motion to table was 6-4, with each

f the non-Boswell directors voting not to table, and

wit h each of the directors as to whom disclosure was

ic ‘of relationship with the J. G. Boswell Company

ting to table. Cell 3 of Buena Vista Lake, the sub-

2 Bot the controversy, is approximately 70 percent

+ @ land area of that lake, and approximately 85

ercent of its storage capacity. No flood water entered

oa 13 in 1969.

®- Plaintiffs Everett and Fred Salyer objected to the

{dt Bosvettcireciors voting on the Buena Vista Lake

} ss Malem Aegean’

ie because of a conflict of interest. Said plaintiffs

d out that when the same issue had arisen at an

ning May 15, 1967, Fred G. Sherrill, a

swell: vice president, who was at the time a director

: +s

Leora ner RRR NR lang District, had writ-

pee “May 10, 1967

- “2 Me. z Louis: Robinson

’ President

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District

1107 Norboe .

Co. “California

As far as I can see at this time, circumstances

make it impossible for me to attend the adjourned

meeting on Monday, May 15 to consider the mat-

ter presented by Director Everette Salyer at the

conclusion of the meeting on May 2nd.

I would like the record to show, however, that

if present, I would have ‘to disqualify myself from

Pe SESH On Se aneation.

Your very truly,

_/s/ FRED G. SHERRILL

Fred G. Sherrill”

These plaintiffs also pointed out that the other members

‘> Of the board of said Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

District who were direct Boswell employees, had dis-

qualified: themselves. on May 15, 1967. One of said

Boswell employees who so disqualified himself on the

earlier date was Stanley M. Barnes.

~ Louis T. Robinson, president of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District since about 1945, came to Calt

fornia from Greensboro, Georgia, the original home of

‘the late Colonel J. G: Boswell, founder of the J. G.

—51—

tl: Company. From August, 1925 to August,

ORK Robinecit was-ananages: of tho San: Joaquin

vfer the J. G. Boswell Company. Until he re-

2: 4951-Mr. Robinson was a director of the J. G.

“Boswell Company. Since his retirement Mr. Robinson

a rectved retirement income from the J. G. Boswell

; “retirement fund and has from time to time

gamertag G. Boswell Company.

He now represents the interest of the Boston Ranch

‘ompany, a subsidiary of the J. G. Boswell Company

“pa. the board of directors of Westlands Water District,

“#94 isa partner in Peterson: Farms, in which the J. G.

Boswell. Company and others are partners. Mr. Robin-

‘fepresents Division 5 of Tulare Lake Basin Water

‘Storage District, and in connection therewith gave depo-

git testimony in the case of Salyer Land Company v.

re Lake Basin Water Storage District on July

(967 as follows:

~-“Q. Mr. Robinson, you are familiar with the

method by which directors are chosen in water

‘storage districts, aren’t you?

: ye _ A. Yes, Tam.

Q. And you are familiar with the method by

- which assessed valuation of land is the criterion

aad which the number of votes may be allocated?

A. Yes, Iam.

S Q. Now you are familiar I take it with the,

|... OF generally familiar at least, with the landhold-

_ ings of the J. G. Boswell Company?

S _ A. Yes.

ie a Does. the J. G. Boswell Company hold

. enough land in Division 5 to in effect elect whom-

_ ever they wish to that post?

A. In my opinion, they do.”

—52—

is a‘first:cousin of JG. Boswell Il, the present presi-

dentof the’ J. «G, Boswell:Company. Mr. Armor until

esignation at the April 6, 1971 meeting of the

district, tepresented Division 8 thereof. In the course of

the ‘deposition above referred to Louis T. Robinson

ee ee ae ah be pee

the following answer: — ;

“Q. Would it be correct to state that since the

acquisition by the J. G. Boswell Company of

‘Crocket and Gambogy—Mr. Reporter, C-r-0-c-k-

et, Gambogy—that since acquisition of

Crocket and Gambogy by the J. G. Boswell Com-

pany, that the Boswell Company has been in

position to control Division 8?

A.- That would be my opinion.”

On March 27, 1969 Salyer Land Company filed an

action in the Superior Court of the State of California

in and for the County of Kings to remove directors

Robinson, Barnes, Evers, Armor, Fisher, and Vander-

griff. An order was issued that the defendants show

cause why they should not be removed, there were a

number of hearings on demurrers and motions to

strike, and the case has been under submission on de-

murrers since October, 1969. All the pleadings, briefs,

and orders in Neer case have been collectively marked

as Exhibit 7.

On October 4, 1965 Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor-

age District filed a motion for leave to intervene in the

case of United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Company,

No. ND 1483, the litigation to determine applicability

Of the acreage restrictions of federal reclamation law

to the lands in the Kings River service area. In its

’ Lelie

| TPiper for such intervention, Tulare Lake Basin Water

_ District stated in part as follows:

“It would appear appropriate that Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District, as the public agency

‘he ‘miotion for leave to intervene was granted by this

jpurt'by-order dated January 27, 1966, and the district

‘Wigs participated in the litigation, which was recently

pabout the month of April 1967 counsel for Salyer

‘Company inquired of James G. McCain, Esq.

Whether the District had ever been redivisioned in ac-

dance with then section 41152 of the California

t Code. Mr. McCain replied as follows:

+. “May 4, 1967

T. Keister Greer, Esq.

Attorney at Law

_ ¢/o Salyer Land Company

P.O. Box 488

Corcoran, California 93212

In accordance with your request you are informed

‘that Mr. Hadseli advises there has been redivi-

sion of the District in accordance with Section

ty ae

+... Very truly yours,

/s/ Jim

James G. McCain

JGM/gh > -

ce: parents

Bon -- Attorney at Law

3130 Lewiston Avenue

" Berkeley, ‘California te pall

‘At the-time the late. Mr. eh iak Gaattaes ob te

District and counsel for it.

Mr. Hadsell’s deposition was taken by counsel for

Salyer Land Company in the case of Salyer Land Com

pany, et al. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dis-

trict, the entire record in which case is being marked

as Exhibit 8, on July 20, 1967. In the course of that

deposition Mr. Hadsell was asked the following ques-

tion and made the following reply: “

“Q. _ Can you tell us, Mr. Hadsell, why Tulare

Lake Basin Water Storage District has not been

at any time since the formation of the District re-

divisioned in accordance with the provisions of

Section 41152 of the Water Code of the State of

California?

A. No.”

The deposition of Louis T. Robinson, President of

the defendant District was taken in the said case of

Salyer Land Company, et al. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District on July 20, 1967. He was asked the

following questions and made the following replies:

“Q. Did you hear my question this morning

to Mr. Hadsel] directed to whether or not there had

been a redivisioning of Tulare Lake Basin Water

MR. GREER: Alll right. Q. I am unable to state

_Werbatim what Mr. Hadsell’s reply was and so I

“= © won't attempt to, but I would like to ask you the

- Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District to the

best of your knowledge?

A. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Has the subject been discussed in your

presence?

Baty MR. LUCAS: When?

MR. GREER: At any time.

i MR.\LUCAS; At any time up until today?

>< MR. GREER: Well, I am not going to ask him

_ about talking to you about it, but let's say has it

“s) been discussed in your presence at any time prior

“y: to the filing of the present lawsuit?

- A. I don't recall any discussion within the

Board of Directors.

% ..~-A.. I don't recall my specific discussion but I

~~ know of the fact that there had been no redivision,

_, Ro-redivision of the District.

-*Q. Do you recall my asking Mr. Hadsell this

_Momning or directing his attention to the disparity

in size bet Division 4, and, for example, I

‘think we said Division 10?

- Ar Yes, I did.

_Q. Do you see that disparity in area yourself?

A. Yes, I do.

- Q. Do you recall my asking Mr. Hadsell about

-» nthesdisparity iniassessed ‘valuation between Divi-

semotepdencemineane sone tneies!

Ac--Mes,T remember that. »

°9Q.)° F. draw. your’ anata for example, to

an ‘the Dect-tiead ila! secbebed*iahention epreseated by

. Mr. Fred’Salyer of something in-excess of two mil-

lion dollarsis“more than ‘four times the assessed

valuation, for example, of Division 7?

Q»?>'ls that correct? ©

A, That's correct. |

Q. And is considerably greater than the as-

sessed valuation of any other division?

~. MR: LUCAS: That doesn’t have any exhibit

* the witness” attention to an exhibit.

' -\MRY GREER: “Yes, it ‘has been marked for

‘entification and I. wil get the one which has the

- qumber on it,

MR. FRED SALYER: No. 58.

° "MR. GREER: No. 58. The paper that the

witness is using is a copy of the exhibit which |

“ made ‘available to you gentlemen this morning, is

MR. LUCAS: “It appears to be, yes. I just

P “don't have the exhibit, Where as the exhibits?

MR. GREER: Q. Mr, Robinson, let me have

that one back and I will show you the one, the

copy, which is marked with an exhibit number,

being Plaintiff's 58, and I draw your attention

again to the disparity in’ assessed valuation be-

tween Division 4 and the other divisions.

—57—

other divisions?

MR. GREER: Q. Well, let me put it to you

way, Mr. Robinson. What appears to be the

assessed valuation of Division 1?

pers Ae $774,420.

= QQ. What appears to be the assessed valuation

© in Division 2?

mr A. 850,622.

@ Q, _ What appears to be the assessed valuation

* A. 955,750.

a What appears to be the assessed valua-

_tion of Division 5?

|... A.. 2,047,620.

%.. Q. No. I said Division 5, sir.

_ A. Five, sorry. 1,472,505.

age ‘ Q. What appears to be the assessed valuation

A. 862,140.

- Q. What appears to be the assessed valuation

A: 448,210. is

Of Division 8?

697,490.

_ Division 9?

619,100.

. Of Division 107

624,840.

. Of Division 11?

~ §39,320.

So it would be correct, Mr. Robinson, to

say that Mr. Fred Salyer in representing Division

‘4ycand what shows there as the astessed valuation

of Division 47

sr - 2,047,620. ;

© Qe spadeielililttytie® ihe velos ‘ns rack

the assessed: valuation of Division 1, more than

twice. as much assessed valuation of Divisions 2,

3,.6, 7; 8, 9, 10:and: 11, wouldn't it?

A. .That’s correct. .

i ° The assessed. valuation of your division

appears to be $1,472,505?

A. That's correct.

Q. Can you: tell us, Mr.:Robhison, why it is

tah Ban eee. ben. hone, gcd. to continue?

A. _ I cannot.”

The last election held in Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District was a special election called by Salyer

Land Company and others. It was held May 23, 1967.

The voting list prepared for that election is Exhibit

9. The location and size of the eleven divisions in

‘Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District are as shown

on the map marked as Exhibit 10. Although that map

is marked “Preliminary, Subject to Revision”, it is

adequate for the purpose of defining the division lines

in the District. )

The assessed valuation of the lands in these divisions

at the time of the special election in 1967 were as

stated in Louis T. Robinson's deposition testimony as

above quoted. Some of these lands have been reas

sessed, and the assessed valuations of the lands in each

division are today as follows:

|@DIVISION NO. ASSESSED VALUATION

_— $1,039,705

1,358,550

974,530

1,954,547

1,342,417

869,160

917,250

167,675

797,040

688,425

620,990

IANhLWNe

- © OO

— jt

Divisior 1 is today represented on the Board of

by Ed H. Howe, Division 2 by Ceil W.

i ‘Division 3-by Leonard L. Evers, Division 4 by

f i 'Satyer, Division 5 by Louis T. Robinson, Divi-

Se scicsh ms ymer: Livin 90) Eibede RAs:

: n, Jr., and Division 8 was represented by Albert

‘Mrmor until April 5, 1971, on which date Mr. Amor

signed. The Board has adopted a resolution on a suc-

sasaki giana eaaadbgg aeiaage ar aaa

et appointed such successor. Division 9 is repre-

d by Stanley M. Barnes, Division 10 by A. L.

ereriff, and Division 11 by C. Everett Salyer.

eset ot eraing epetons a. Tolaee Lake

» Water Storage District is as shown on the map

larked as Exhibit 11. The pattern of farming in the

@istrict is also shown in the Schedule of Water Alloca-

bh to the several operators in the District, which

“Behedule is Exhibit 12..From this schedule it appears

‘Maat the J. G. Boswell Company farms approximately

0:60 percent of the land in the District. Salyer Land

& ' ie

3

—60—

Company farms approximately 15.19 percent of the

land in the District. South Lake Farms farms approxi-

mately 13, percent of the land in the District and

Westlake Fs s farms approximately 15.72 percent of

the land therein. These four corporations alone farm

almost 85 percent of the land in the District.

There has been no general water storage district elec-

tion in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District since

1947. Other than the special election of May 23,

1967 there has been no election of directors at all

since 1947,

Plaintiffs C. vas Salvee Wid PiNid Satyec: are pres:

dent and vice president of Salyer Land Company, are

landowners in the District in. their individual capacities,

and are directors. of Tulare Lake. Basin Water Storage

District, They declined to attend meetings of the Board

of Directors:of: the District after the meeting of March

4, 1969. until March 2, 1971, upon the advice of counsel.

Lawrence Ellison is 62 and has been in the Tulare

Lake area for forty years. He attended the University of

Redlands, was for many’ years Superintendent of

Cfotket ‘and Gambogy, a large farming operation in the

District which was acquired in 1956 by the J. G. Bos-

well Company, and from 1956 to 1969 held a respor-

sible position with the J. G. Boswell Company. He lost

his position with the Boswell Company because of re

-ductions occasioned by the 1969 flood, and worked

during the 1969-flood as Levee Supervisor for Consoli-

dated: Reclamation District. He is a resident of the

‘District; but: is. not a. landowner, and cannot vote

therein. He isa registered voter; Ellison’ takes an it

terest: in: water matters, is:on the mailing list of several

‘publications concerning: water and. water problems in

iglifornia, and he reads these publications. He would

iPiaintiff Harold Shawl is 61, a certified professional

i a graduate of the University of California

bes hed forty years experience in water matters in

. ‘1971 it was $405,000. The budgets for the District

or 1970 -and 1971 have been collectively marked as

? bit 13.

"The water rights of Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

| " istrict, for example, its water right in the Kings River

§ stated in the Kings River Schedule, and its water

derived from its contract with the state of Cali-

fornia, are for the equal benefit of the lands in the

District. That is to say, there are no gradations or prior-

‘Whes within the District as to District water.

"On February 20, 1969 the Attorney General of Cali-

: brnia acting through Deputy Attorney General Rich-

er wrote the letter which is Exhibit 14.

said letter, which concludes that water storage

distr pts are publ. subdivisons of the State, was sub-

d by Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District to

¢ United States as part of an application by defend-

teal federal moneys, and $234,512.24 in federal

§ was paid to defendant district pursuant to that

plicat n. The said application was for a federal dis-

ee 3 Shak: for assistance in connection with dam-

occasioned by the 1969 flood.

May 19, 1967, President Louis T. Robinson of

flare Lake Basin Water Storage District was in San

ancisco at a meeting of the California District Se-

—62—

curities: Commission concerned with Project 4 of that

District. In response to a’suggestion that the Commis.

sion defer action’ until after the special election then

scheduled colina 1967 Mr. Robinson stated to the

«MR. "ROBINSON: I know you shouldn't

forecast elections and that causes me a little hesi

tancy to say what I am going to say.

.. The eleven. divisions in this large farming opera-

tion are completely controlled. You are going to

_have.the same eleven directors on Tuesday that

you have got today—with one exception. One of

the directors: is having some health trouble and he

is going to be réplaced; but other than that, they

are going to be the same eleven directors.”

; * * £

“MR. ROBINSON: Well, I have no concem

about the election.

~ But suddenly. if a.:new board of directors were

‘to come in, why then I would have nothing but

opinion. But I have'no concern about the election.

"The eleven divisions are controlled by people with

enough votes to put back the same directors they

have now—including the two Salyers that are dis

senting at this time. They will be returned; the

-> other nine will be returned.” .

The pictures of the homes in Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District collectively marked as Exhibit

15 are genuine.

iil

¢ are some small farmers in the District who

land they farm. One of these is Marion Harris,

leases the North half and the Southwest quarter

ction 17, Township 23 South, Range 23 East,

B. & M. Mr. Harris, although a farming operator

Mi the District, if not entitled to vote therein. Another

Marmer who leases but does not own the land cultivated

‘y him is Ronnie Harris, who farms the North half of

fection 20, Township 23 South, Range 23 East,

D.B. & M. Ronnie Harris is not permitted to vote

District elections. Malcolm Powers leases the North

of Section 3, Township 23 South, Range 19 East,

[D.B. & M. He also is not entitled to vote in District

LIUTIS

The following persons live in Tulare Lake Basin

: RESIDENTS WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF

TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

Mr. and Mrs. Theodore F. Dragoo 2

Mr. and Mrs. R: H. Escalera ;

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Parrish 2

Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth G. Rider

and two 4

Mr. and Mrs. Tony O. Jiminez

two chi 4

Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Dunham 2

“Mr. and Mrs. William E. Spangier 2

and Mrs. Perry Hixon 2

Mr. and Mrs. M. S. Spencer ‘

—

«Mix. and. Mrs. Richard W. Koontz

ec a

Sein 20:19 °

°°. Mie and Mrs. W. W. Davin

> Mr, ona

Section 11-21-19 ©

Mr, and Mrs. Cecil: 'W. Howe

seaming

‘Mr. and Mrs. Ed H. Howe

and two children

Mr. M. O. Reed.

South Ranch Headquarters

Star Roats,, Bos:21, Stratford, California 93266

-Mr, Lupe Martinez.

Mr. Alex Jimenez

Mr. Luiz Rameriz

Mr. Jesus Hildago

‘Mr. Jorge Salazar

Mr. Salvidor Avila

Mr. Noe C. Sotela

Mr. Jose E. Quinones

Mr. Bob Gibson, Jr.

Mr. Ruben Avilia

Section 1-22-21

‘Mr. and Mas. Chea LeMay

—_ ww

—

—66— a

Exhibit No. 6—Minutes of meeting of Board af

Directors of Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage —

held March 4, 1969. : :

Exhibit No. 7—Entire record in Salyer Land Cae

pany v. Louis T. Robinson, et al. filed March 27, 1969,

Exhibit No 8—Complaint, stipulation and judgment

in case of Salyer Land Company, et al. vs. Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District, 1967.

Exhibit No. 9—Voting list of special election May

23, 1967, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District,

"Exhibit No. 10—Division map of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District, showing assessed valuation of

each division, and the director representing each dive

Exhibit No. 11—Farmer Operation map, Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District.

Exhibit No. 12—1961 schedule of water allocation,

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.

Exhibit No. 13—Budgets of Tulare Lake Basin

Water Storage District for 1970 and 1971. —

Exhibit No. 14—Letter from office of the Attorney

General, State of California, dated February 20,

~ 1969.

Exhibit No. 15—Eighteen photographs of residences

in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.

FOLDOUT(S) IS/ARE TOO LARGE TO BE FILMED

+ Nl er Ae ne tn oe

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 12.

Cl 2 OF WATER ALLOCATION TO

_ WATER USERS OF TULARE LAKE

76,501.43

320.00

704,32

1,178.83

1,849.59

3,183.11

1,539.29

2,823.66

1,827.76

2,958.95

28,606.14

560.00

3,815.20

24,721.41

333.00

29,604.42

4,795.11

2,930.56

188,252.78

e District Act of 1921, ap-

wed June 3, 1921. Statutes of California for 1921

1727. (For the convenience of the Court, copies

relevant sections of the California Water

District Act of 1921 are submitted herewith.)

accordance with the mandate of that act, the

te Engineer of the State of California ‘divided the

strict into eleven divisions, having segregated “. . .

i A is a map of the District showing the eleven

This original determination by the State Engi-

‘meet of the boundaries of the eleven divisions has re-

ined unchanged since the formation of the District.

‘has never been filed with the Department of

Works or, since 1965, with the Board of Direc-

§ ofthe District any petition or request that the

nda: lines of the divisions within the District be

the Board of Directors of the District is composed

Jnder ‘California law, a Water Storage District un-

lakes what are known as “District Projects” -(Cali-

“Aomnia Water Code, sections 42200 ff.). The Tulare

¢ Basin Water Storage District has had four District

ts since its formation:

- < - General District Project No.1.

Ou Taly 12, 1927, the Board of Directors of the

rict a “Report and Estimate of Cost of

etc et..

Ea

—7T6—

Proposed Improvements of Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District,” a copy of which is submitted here-

with as Exhibit B. On July 22, 1927, this report was

filed with the Office of the State Engineer who ap-

proved the report and called for an election to be

-held to. approve or disapprove said report. An election

was. duly. held on December 6, 1927, at. which time

the Report and Estimate was duly aogted as General

District Project No. 1.

General. District Project No. 1 contemplated the pur-

chase by the District of eighteen (18) sections of land

in the lowest part of the Basin to be used as a water

storage reservoir, the construction of certain facilities in

the main channel of the Kings River to divert water

from: the North Fork of that river to the South Fork

and for the construction of certain channel improve-

ments, The estimated cost of the General District Proj-

ect No. 1. was $1,608,434.85.

After the aforementioned election adopting the Gen-

eral Project No. 1, proceedings were held in accordance

with Section 19 of the California Water Storage District

Act for the levy of assessments upon the lands of the

District. The State Engineer appointed three commission-

ers who, after duly conducted hearings, assessed the

costs of the project in proportion to the benefits that

they determined would accrue to. the various lands in

the District. The Assessment Commissioners prepared

an Assessment Roll and reported to the State Engi-

neer. See Exhibit.C submitted herewith. This assess-

-ment became effective on August 3, 1929 and re-

mained in full force and effect until 1961, when Gen-

eral District Project No. 2 was adopted.

_» From time to time, various portions of General

Project No, 1 were carried out in whole or in part.

S 77

at ' — —_—

Paty

Some twenty (20) calls for payment were made under

this. assessment, totaling approximately 47,13 per cent

| Of this assessment.

_ However, because of an adverse decision in the

| Courts of the State of California, the District was pre-

‘yented from diverting the flow of the Kings River

| to the-South Fork, and because of the depressed state

| Of the economy in the 1930's and a long cycle of dry

| weather when there was no water available for storage,

. the District abandoned its plan to purchase the eighteen

_ sections in the Basin. They reverted to private owner-

oe General District Project No. 2.

_ Under the provisions of the Flood Control Act of

1944, the Corps of Engineers of the United States

_ ‘Ammy was authorized to construct flood control dams

at various dates beginning in the eatly 1950's By

1. On March 2, 1961, the Board of Directors

*) and Estimate of Cost which estimateg the total

<=> gost of General District Project No. 2 at $2,720,-

—7e—

2: On April 5, 1961, the Report and Esti-

mate of Cost was filed with the California State

Department of Water Resources.

3. On June 26, 1961, after an investigation,

the Department of Water Resources approved and

confirmed: the ,aforementioned, teport and issued

‘an order calling an election to. determine whether

the report should be adopted by the District.

~ 4. On August 1, 1961, an election was held

in the District on the question of whether District

~ Project No. 2 should be completed.

5. On August 16, 1961, the Department ‘of

Water Resources issued its order declaring the re-

sults of the aforementioned election.

The canvass of votes indicated that under Of-

ficial Ballot A there were 66,313 votes in favor

of the project and none opposed. Under Official

Ballot B, the total number of votes cast at the elec-

tion was 50 for completion of the project and none

6. On August 29, 1961, the District filed an

action in the State courts to determine the validity

of the adoption of the project.

7. On October 20,. 1961, the court rendered

a judgment declaring that the adoption of General

Distdet Bagiest No, 2 was valid.

8. On July 30, 1962, an assessment in the

amount of $2,720,000 became duly established.

A copy of the complaint in the validation proceed-

ings, including the exhibits attached thereto as well as

the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment,

is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

ea ee ey

—79—

i ae General District Project No. 3.

__ © As a result of an opinion by Frank J. Barry, Solicitor

of the Depariment of Interior, the anticipated contrac-

tual-arrangements which the District expected to enter

_ into-with the United States were substantially changed.

_ Nonetheless, it was the judgment of the Board of Di.

_ sectors of the District that the interest of the District

3 would be served by participating in a series of con-

_ tacts acquiring storage space on the four floor control

ams mentioned in General District Project No. 2. It

was estimated that the total cost of General District

_ «Project No. 3 would be $2,795,000. (No part of the

_ Peior, assessment of $2,720,000 had been called for

_ payment.) A copy of the Report and Estimate of Cost

on General District Project No. 3 is attached hereto as

ExpibitP.

The following steps were taken to implement Gen-

- eral District Project No. 3:

~... 1, On April 13, 1964, the Board of Direc-

»., tors of the District approved and adopted the Re-

port and Estimate of Cost. | }

2. On May 12, 1964 the Report and Estimate

of Cost was filed with the Department of Water

- Resources of the State of California. |

~*~ --3. On Angust 18, 1964, after a report and

©“ investigation, the Department of Water Resources

© made its order approving and confirming the Re-

_ ©? “port and recommendations of the Board and on

© © the same day issued an order calling for an elec-

~ °° tion*in’ the ‘District to’ determine whether such Re-

°° “port and Estimate of Cost should be adopted by

Spey et the District

fete?

—g0—

4. On September 15, 1964, an election was

duly held as required by law on the question of

whether the Project should be completed.

5... On September 29, 1964, the Department of

Water Resources issued its order declaring the re-

_ gults of the election. (The canvass of the votes re-

- vealed that- under Official Ballot A 59,216 votes

were cast in favor of the Project; none was op-

posed to it. Under Official Ballot B, the total num-

- ber: of votes cast at the election was 45, all in

favor of the Project, none opposed. )

6. On November 12, 1964, the District filed

an action in the State court to determine the va-

lidity of General District Project No. 3.

7. On March 11, 1965, the court rendered a

judgment declaring valid the adoption by the Dis-

trict of General District Project No. 3.

_A copy of the complaint filed in the validation pro-

ceedings together with the exhibits attached thereto and

the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the Judg-

ment in that action are submitted herewith as Exhibit G.

Additional Project No. 1.

- By 1963, the construction of the California State

Aqueduct, which would bring water from Northern Cali-

fornia along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley,

was sufficiently assured that the State of California was

willing to contract with appropriate agencies for the

sale of such water. The District wished to contract with

the State for the purchase of a substantial amount

of this water for irrigation use on the lands of the Dis

trict. The Report and Estimate on Additional Proj- _

ect No. 1 was favorably passed upon by the Board of

7

ee ek

Directors on November 18, 1963, approved by the De-

partment of Water Resources on November 20, 1963

_ and approved by the voters of the District on Decem-

| ber 17, 1963. A copy of the Report and Estimate of

Cost is submitted herewith as Exhibit H.

_ + Subsequently, it was determined that the District

| could contract for additional water from the State. Ac-

| cordingly, the District undertook to enter into a modi-

-» fied agreement with the State by means of Modification

_ to Additional Project No. 1. The following steps were

. taken to empower the District to contract with the State

- for the purchase of water:

2. On August 5, 1964, the Report was filed

with the Department of Water Resources of the

State of California.

3. On August 18, 1964, the Department of

Water Resources made and entered its order ap-

proving the Report and made another order call-

ing for-an election in the District to determine

whether such Report and Estimate should be

adopted by the District.

4. On September 15, 1964, an election was

duly held on the. question of whether the Modifi-

ae cation to Additional Project No. 1 should be

5. On September 21, 1964, the Department

of Water Resources issued its order declaring the

results of the election. (The canvass of the votes

aT Se great 44

Se a

—t2—

_.. “gevealed that? under Official Ballot A 59,326

--yotes were cast in favor of the Project; none was

‘Under Official Ballot B, 45 votes were

‘cast in favor of the Project; none was opposed. )

6. On November 12, 1964, the District filed

an action to determine the validity of the Report

and Estimate on the Modification of Additional

5 Reopen Neve.

"2 On March 11, 1965, the Court rendered

a judgment declaring valid the adoption of the

Modification of Additional Project No. 1.

A copy of. the complaint filed in-the validation pro-

ceedings together .with exhibits attached thereto and

the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and

Judgment are submitted herewith as Exhibit I-

General District Project Nop4.

Havies contracted with the State ‘Ot California for

the. purchase of water, it was necessary to transport

this water from the State Aqueduct to the District.

Therefore, it was the unanimous judgment of the

Directors of the: District that it would be. in the best

interests of the landowsiers ‘in the District to construct

two laterals from the State Aqueduct to the District

by which®to transport the water to the District. It was

also deemed advisable ‘that the District construct an

Office building. It was estimated that the total cost for

Project No. 4 would be $1,800,000. (In fact, the two

laterals have been constructed by the District at a cost

of approximately $2,500,000.)

con. tae

*<The following steps were taken to implement Proj-

et No. 4:

1. On July 5, 1966, the Board of Directors

peiay of the District unanimously approved and adopted

3 the Report and Estimate of Cost of General District

Project No. 4, a copy of which is submitted here-

with as Exhibit J.

2. On December 19, 1966, the Report was

filed with the District’s Securities Commission.

3. On May 19, 1967, the District’s Securities

Commission issued its order approving General

District Project No. 4 and thereafter, in accord-

ance with Section No. 42525 of the California

Water Code, the Board of Directors called an

election to be held in the District to determine

whether the voters approved Project No. 4.

4. On July 11, 1967, an election was held

by the District in accordance with the aforemen-

tioned procedure.

5. On July 24, 1967, the Board of Directors

canvassed the results of the election and reported

_ that under Official Ballot A there were 79,523

Votes in favor of the completion of District Proj-

ect No. 4 and 13,923 votes opposed. Under

‘Official Ballot B, the number of ballots cast was

207 votes in favor of the Project; 63, opposed.

6. On May 18, 1967, the Salyer Land Com--

m3 pany filed an action in the State courts challeng-

2 ing the validity of District Project No. 4.

“7. On September .......; 1967, an order was

pe entered by stipulation decreeing that Project No.

4 had ‘been validly adopted by the District. A

copy of the complaint, stipulation and judgment

are submitted herewith as Exhibit K.

‘cll nie

Assessment Commissioners were appointed in ac-

cordance with California Water Code section 46150,

who. prepared an Assessment Roll and filed their re-

port with the District Securities Commission. A copy

of their report is submitted herewith as Exhibit L

and a copy of the Assessment Roll, as Exhibit M.

The last election of directors was held May 23,

1967; ‘There“'was no election in 1969. The District

called ‘an election to be held February 2, 1971. Pe-

circulated in three divisions on behalf of

behalf of: others, Therefore, the three directors were

reappointed to succeed themselves in accordance with

California Water ‘Code section 41307. No petitions

were circulated in Divisions 4 and 11, represented by

“Fred Salyerand C. Everette Salyer, respectively. These

directors were reappointed at their request by the De-

partment of Water Resources of the State of Cali-

fornia. i

The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District en-

compasses . approximately 193,000 acres, most of

which is located in the, Tulare Lake Basin. Tulare

Lake Basin in turn is a shallow depression of about

270,000 acres. in area located west of , Corcoran,

California. A map of the Basin. showing the bounds-

ries of the District is submitted herewith as Exhibit N.

The Basin is subject to flooding from time to time,

from the: flows of the Kings, Kaweah, Tule

or Kern Rivers or combinations thereof. For example,

Gn 1969 one of the largest floods in /history inundated

portions. of- the. Basin, flooding over $8,000 acres of

rich farmland, A. photograph of the Basin showing the

flooded area on October 5,.1969.is submitted herewith

‘as Exhibit O. At the peak of the flood, 100 per cent

of divisions 3, 5 and 6, 56 per cent of division 4 and

_ #8 per cent of division 7 were under water.

‘Because of the recurrent floods, very few people live

in the District. At the present time, there are 77 men,

_ women and children living in the District. Many of

"the families are permanent or semi-permanent em-

_ ployees of Westlake Farms, Inc., which Owns approxi-

_ mately 15,000 acres of land on the west side of the

- Basin. For example, 38 people reside at that com-

" pany’s Nevada Avenue Labor Camp; 6, at its Kettle

man City Labor Camp; 10, at its headquarters

‘complex; and 12, at its South Ranch headquarters,

making a total of 66 people affiliated with Westlake

Farms, Inc. living in the District. In addition, 2 people

at the El Rico headquarters of the J. G. Boswell

Company and 4, at that company’s Homeland head-

Quarters. Four people live at the Southlake Farms

headquarters, and Lawrence Ellison one of the plain-

fiffs in this action, lives in a home owned by plaintiff

Salyer Land Company at its North Central headquar-

“wets. A map showing the location of each of these

“Aocations, except Westlake Farms South Lake head-

E is submitted herewith as Exhibit P.

| Among these people, only the members of the Howe

“families, who are the owners of Westlake Farms, a

gorporation, own land in the District. .

There are 307 landowners in the District. The pat-

ern: of land ownership varies greatly in different por-

tons of the District. For example, in the lower portions

Of the land is held, for the most part, in sizable owner.

ships. However, in the southeastern quadrant, in an

: fea sometimes referred to as the Homeland District,

pa

Ea?

i

bee?

Be

in dé Otte,

Tetere Lae Bee © ee

a Ge

Storage

$

ea

i. :

a

es

Filed June 10, 1971.

a

Hers

a.

Sc cn ame

. District Project No. 4

EXHIBIT K—Complain, stipulation and judgment

land holdings in the District

EXHIBIT apa dip copan

EXHIBIT Q—Schedule showing the relative number a

2

_ LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

"Section 1-21-19

Mr. and Mrs. Theodore F. Dragoo

oo: Me hep auethe > originate

r Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Parrish

’ . Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth G. Rider

~- Mr. and Mrs. Tony O. Jiminez

~ and two children

* Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Dunham

‘Mr. and Mrs. William E. Spangler

’ Mr, and Mrs. Perry Hixon

Mr. and Mrs. M. S. Spencer

- and one child

cages! og mega

Ptrasers ag a

Mr. and Mrs. Donald M. Langdon

_. Mr. and Mrs. John P. Warren

-- and two children 04

NNSs WwW NNNPSF F&F NU WN

Section 7-22-19

Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Davin

2

Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Bentley

and two children 4

Section 11-21-19

~ "Mr. and Mrs. Ceil W. Howe

Mr. and Mrs. Ceil W. Howe, Jr.

and one child

| Mr. and Mrs. Ed H. Howe

~~~ and two children

* Mr. M. O. Reed

—>» © WN

~

4

- WITHIN ‘BOUNDARIES OF TULARE q

A wen WATER STORAGE, DISTRICT... |

re: “PAGE TWO

South Ranch

Sete _aeneeamereanealentrttd

(Lupe Martinez

. Alex Jimenez

“ SMe La Raseecls

. Mr. Jesus Hidalgo

Mr. Jose Medina

. Mr. Jorge Salazar

_. Mr. Salvidor Avila

= Mr. Noe C. Sotela

» Mr. Cresencio Hara Resa

Mr. Jose E. Quinones

© Mr. Bob Gibson, Jr.

Mr. Ruben Avila

ee ee ee ee ee

Settion 1-22-21

Mr. and Mrs. Chris LeMay

Section 13-23-21

Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Pendola 2

- Mr. and Mrs. Ted A. Brien ; 2

“Section 9-23-22 ;

“Mr. and Mrs. Dale Frey 2

Mr. and Mrs. Hamil Saylor 2.

a

Section 19-21-20

Mr. Lawrence Ellison 1

‘TOTAL RESIDENTS WITHIN BOUNDARIES

DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT Q.

SUMMARY

LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE

LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

Percent Percent

Number of yi pr of Total of Total

me Number of Acres Ownerships of Acreage Acreage

| greater than 25,001

ps between 10,001 and 25,000

5,001 and 10,000

2,561 and 5,000

1,281 and 2,560

641-and -1,280

321 and

161 and

81 and

41 and

21 and

0 and

61,666 32.76

62,031 32.95 65.71

5,122 2.72 68.43

6,462 3.43 71.86

10,294 5.47 717.33

10,453 5.55 82.88

15,255 8.10 90.98

8,539 4.54 95.52

4,034 2.14 97.66

2,334 124 98.90

1,353 72 99.62

710 38 100.00

188,253 100.00

CB2SSBVSS anak

se

Is |

i eT:

Hee - ic eh afs

Roe a af ‘ape

+ : ik = 2 i a iF = al

an a fe al ie |} ——

bags fu i sulle! rT 24 | ak

mae au

#3] Ait e ainty il

z “f ij albla dee fags ani

fea i ai At te lie i

g a fe>3

ARR

OFFICIAL BALLOT (A)

(Voting Basis, Assessed Value of Land)

‘TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

GENERAL DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4 PROJECT ELECTION

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1967

report of the Board of Directors of the Tulare Lake Basin Water

District entided “Report and Estimate of Cost on Gannel Dink ten

in Water, District” July 5

two

254s

a §

a Pe

58

ik

;

;

F

LH

PROPOSITION SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS

PROPOSITION: Shall the a tee Completion of Project—

sectdadhentatita YES

Board of Directors of the District on

it

i

:

cee

B

Be s

: OFFICIAL BALLOT (A)

Babe = (Voting Basis, Assessed Value of Land)

'* "TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

“. ‘TULARE AND KINGS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

«| GENERAL DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4 PROJECT ELECTION

; TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1967

geport of the Board of Directors of the Tulare Lake Basin Water

e

gees

>

~soigh¢lars toead es eerie gr bapecaivener agi eg

to the District and the construction of an office

District, and sets forth and describes the works. There

a recommendation of the Directors that the

accordance with the report. On May 19, 1967, the Cali-

made and entered an order and confirming

recommendation. The purpose of the is to determine

PROPOSITION SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS

ROPOSITION: Shall the andthe Completion of Project—

fie et Directors of the District on Completion of Project—

on

eral District Project No. 4 be adopted NO

VS SE PORTON SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS

eed Geipaiivamiion of the YES an

_of Directors of the District on Completion of Project—

ral District Project No. 4 be adopted? NO

Initials of Elected Officer

Engineer Summers made the following report:

“1. Question has arisen in the Audit Committee

matter but did instruct

there, to

different locations.

Board of Directors. He stated

canal under the spoil bank, and

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT S.

ar runrien RESOLVE ato eps i election, one

Election i

designated is established

petal

El Rico Ranch Office of J. G. Boswell Company,

ocd anak vale elgrege

&

Z

:

7a

repes

Ht

TIF

5

OFFICIAL. BALLOT (B)

(Voting Basis, One Vote For Bach Qualified Voter)

TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

Counties of Kings and Tulare, State of California

GENERAL DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4 PROJECT ELECTION

Tuesday, July 11, 1967

“Completion of Project—YES.” T eames teepelics, comp +4)

” Hern a voting square

after the words ion of project-NG” All m

All di ishing marks or erasures are f

+

oF

J

voter it must BALLOT

this ONLY

the initials of Initials RUBBER STAMP;

the election | of Member NEVER WITH PEN

Before the voted bal- of OR PENCIL

in the ballot Election (Fold ballot to this

tab must be torn off Board perforated line,

Inspector, and it must top margin exposed

preserved and returned

OFFICIAL BALLOT (B)

(Voting Basis, One Vote For Each Qualified Voter)

TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT

- a 200 Counties of Kings and Tulare, State of California

<SENERAL DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4 PROJECT) ELECTION -

es Tuesday, July 11, 1967 ©

PP SF ie

i aT ry

ee

IN: cee ert and te Completion of Project—

. of Directors of the District on Completion of Project—

ee Rk NO "

- 3—Deft’s Ex. S

Initials of Elected Officer

,

aim Tees

‘PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S

tree STATEMENT OF FACTS.

_ Filed June 14, 1971

_ Defendant's statement of facts is essentially correct,

_ subject to the following reservations:

_ "1. The statement that “the state engineer of the

State of California divided the district into eleven di-

Visions” is not fully accurate. The division lines were

_ tstablished by the district itself, and submitted to the

- state engineer for his approval. The Amended Report

~ and Estimate of Cost for Project 1, a large red volume,

thas been or is being submitted by the defendant as its

| Exhibit “B”. Plaintiffs had intended filing this report

“themselves, but have not done so to avoid duplication.

* Exhibit “D” of that report is entitled “Report on Feasi-

~ bility of Proposed Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

~ District”, and was prepared by Mr. S. T. Harding, the

district's consulting engineer, under date of June 1,

1926. Pages 73 and 74 of Exhibit “D” are attached

thereto for convenience. The relevant material is as

follows:

“Directors divisions

The proponents of the district request its di-

vision into eleven directors divisions. This is the

storage district act. The actual divisions desired

are also presented by the proponents. These com-

ply with section 6 of the water storage district act

ee, in ‘possessing the same general character of water

ae Tights or interests in and to the waters of such

be, common source.’ The changes in boundary [of

The proposed divisions follow generally the

lines of existing reclamation districts. It is also

—96—

understood ‘that’ they are adjusted to give the

balance of représentation desired by the parties.

to the agreement, entered as Exhibit F.

_-'The proposed divisions comply with the law,

spi os Aone ig a

land . There appears to be little reason for

cha them if they are satisfactory to the pro-

ts. H . the ‘number of directors re-

quested is larger than is considered needed or

desirable for such a district. Any disadvantages

of such a number of divisions are internal matters

of district management rather than of outside

supervision, however.

Division 4 represents the lands in the reservoir

area and the North Central Reclamation District.

After the transfer of the reservoir lands to the

storage district, if this is done, they would no

longer be assessed and all vote in this division

would be from the assessed value of the smaller

area in the North Central Reclamation District.

As a reduction in the number of divisions

would result in the need for revision of some por-

tions of the agreement among the principal

owners within the district, the establishment of

the eleven divisions with the boundaries re-

quested is recommended.”

It will be noted that a map of Tulare Lake Basin Water

) District showing the division boundaries is

Exhibit “B” of the 1927 Report and Estimate of Cost.

As defendant states in its factual submission, this report

was filed with the state engineer on July 22, 1927, and

he approved the report as filed, including the division

coals

daries. But those boundaries originated with the

proponents of the district.

It is true that the water storage district law required

_ the dividing of the proposed district “into five, seven,

- ine, or eleven divisions so as to segregate into sepa-

_ Yate divisions land possessing the same general charac-

ter of water rights . . .” [Water Code, §39777; stats.

$921, ¢. 914, p. 1731, sec. 6]. This was technically

complied with, for all the lands in all the divisions in

the defendant district were to have the same rights to

district water. See page 24 of the Report and Estimate

of Cost dated July 30, 1927, defendant’s Exhibit “B”:

“That is to say, all waters—whatever that

quantity may be—acquired by or under control

of the District, are to be prorated equally over the

acreage in that District. Or, in other words, all

things being equal, every acre of land within the

boundaries of your District will be equally bene-

fited by your project.”

It is true that’mo formal request has been made of

_ the Board of Directors for a redivisioning. But both

_ gounsel for the district and the president of the district

“ywere cross-examined on the subject as set forth in

" plaintiffs’ statement of facts in the 1967 case of Salyer

_ Land Company, et al. v.. Tulare Lake Basin Water

_ Storage District. In the 1969 case of Salyer Land Com-

"pany v. Louis T. Robinson, et al. (the complete record

of which has been filed as plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7) one of

grounds stated in the first amended complaint for

ie removal of the six defendant directors in that liti-

lion was the failure to redivision the district. At that

the defendants argued that the district could only

edivisioned after the adoption of its first project.

sell

[Defendant's “Reply Memorandum in Re Demurrer in

Motion to Strike”, Salyer Land Company v. Louis T, |

Robinson, et al., Kings County Superior Court No.

20056, page 12 of Exhibit 7]. In the same year in

which the above litigation was filed, §41152 of the

Water Code, the provision for redivisioning of water

storage districts was repealed, effected as of August

29, 1969. As the answer of the defendant admits, al-

though the date is there mistakenly given as August

29, 1970, “Section 41152 was repealed, and at this

time there is no statutory provision concerned with re-

divisioning the district.” The plaintiffs accordingly take

the position that they had no administrative remedy,

and they will shortly file a brief on this point.

2. With reference to the sequence of events as to

General District Project No. 4, on December 6, 1966

a proposed supplement to Project 4 did not receive

the necessary two-thirds majority, On December 16,

1966 four of the directors who had assented to Project

4 at the meeting of July 5, 1966, notified the Secretary

of the district and the California District Securities Com-

mission that they had withdrawn such assent.

3. The statement on page 11 of defendant's state-

ment of facts, “these small holdings are all leased for

farming to larger operators” is subject to the reserva-

tion that such farmers as Marion Harris, Ronnie Harris

and Malcolm Powers farm small leaseholdings which

are not leased to large operators, as detailed on pages

19 and 20 of plaintiffs’ statement of facts.

4, The statement on page 12 that there are no fire

departments in the district is subject to the reservation

‘that there is a public fire department situated at the old

Crocket. and Gambogy headquarters in Section 9,

Bi,

Township 23 South, Range 22 East. A portion of the

- fire department sign is visible at the right of the pho-

© tograph of the residence at the ole Crocket and

_ Gambogy headquarters, the Photograph being a part

- of plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15.

5. The statement that there are no police is subject

to the reservation that the Sheriff's office of Kings

County provides police Protection throughout Kings

County.

6. The statement on page 12, “the Board actually

exercises. very little governmental power” is a con-

clusion of law rather than a statement of fact. Plaintiffs

disagree, and consider all of the district's functions ex-

clusively governmental under the holding of Glenn-

Colusa Irrigation District vy. Ohrt, 31 Cal. App. 2d

619 (1939). However, this is an issue of law rather

than of fact.

| —100—

- Letter From Counsel to Court June 11, 1971.

| Law Offices —

110 Maple Avenue

* Rocky Mount, Virginia,24151

Federal Buidding

Fresno, California 93721

Re: Salyer Land Company, et al. vs.

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

District Civil No. F-414

Dear Judge Crocker:

It is my understanding that this case stands sub-

mitted on the fact statements filed by the plaintiffs and

the defendant. It is my further understanding that

the plaintiffs_are to file their opening brief on or be-

fore June 30th, that the defendant is to file its brief

on or before July 14th, and that the plaintiffs are to

file their reply brief, if any, on or before July 28th.

With kindest regards, I am

Respectfully,

Thomas Keister Greer ‘

TKG/pf

ce: C. Ray Robinson, Esq.

Ernest M. Clark, Esq.

Robert M. Newell, Esq.

—101—

Letter From Court to Counsel September 2, 1971.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of California

& Fresno, California 93721

- 110 Maple Avenue >

Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Re: Salyer Land Company v. Tulare Lake

Basin Water Storage District—Civil No.

F-414

Dear Mr. Greer:

The panel in the above-entitled case would appreci-

ate supplemental memorandums directed to the sub- ”

: “Assuming the constitutional validity of the

limitation of the franchise to landowners and the

Weighting of the vote in accordance with the

value of the land of each landowner-voter, would

an issue of malapportionment as between di-

visions in the district remain in the case, and, if

‘" $0, what would be the views of the ‘parties as to

that remaining issue?”

_~ Please submit the supplemental memorandums with-

‘in 15 days. :

Boer Very truly yours, |

M. D. Crocker :

_ ec: Honorable James R. Browning

_ , -Honorable Robert H. Schnacke

~~. Ray Robinson, Esq.

-_. Robert M. Newell, Esq. >

Ernest M. Clark, Esq.

te.

Se a TE See Peg

—102—

Letter From Clerk to Counsel Feb. 18, 1972.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNA

Office of the Clerk

U. S. Court House:

Fresno, California 93721

C. Ray Robinson

Attorney at law

650 W. 19th St.

Merced, Calif. 95340

Thomas Keister Greer

Attorney at law

Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Donnelly, Clark, Chase & Haakh

600 South Spring St.

Newell and Chester

650 So. Grand Ave., Suite 500

Los Angeles, Calif. 90017

Sirs:

Re: F-414-Civil

Salyer Land Co., et al. v. Tulare Lake

Water, etc.

Enclosed herewith is a copy of memorandum and

order of Judge Crocker and Judge Schnake and a copy

of an opinion of Judge Browning concurring in part

and dissenting in part. _

Yours truly,

D. D. BUTLER

Deputy Clerk

encl.

cc: Attorney General

State of Calif.

mae eee

- Original Filed: February 17, 1972.

___ In the United States District Court, Eastern District

__ Salyer Land Company, a California corporation, C.

* Everette Salyer, Fred Salyer, Lawrence Ellison, and

Harold Shawl, Plaintiffs, vs. Tulare Lake Basin Water

& ge District, a public district, Defendant. No. F-414

‘ Civ. ,

_ This court has jurisdiction under section 1343 of

_ Title 28 and section 1983 of Title 42 of the United

~ States Code, and a three-judge court has been con-

- vened pursuant to section 2284 of Title 28 of the

~ United States Code. —

__, The case was submitted on factual statements of the

~ parties and briefs, without testimony or oral argument.

_ Plaintiffs were represented by C. Ray Robinson, Esq.,

_ and Thomas Keister Greer, Esq.; defendant was repre-

_Sented by Robert M. Newell, Esq., and Ernest M.

" Clark, Jr., Esq.

a Plaintiffs are landowners or resident registered voters

within the area covered by defendant, Tulare Lake

~ Basin Water Storage District, which was organized pur-

_ $uant to California law.

_. In this action, plaintiffs contend that California

_ Water Code §§ 41000 and 41001" are unconstitutional

dn that they deny plaintiffs the equal protection of the

~-104— ?

law guaranteed ‘by thefourteenth\ améndment of the

Constitution of the United, States in that they permit

only | to vote and give them one vote for

each $100 of assessed valuation. Thus ‘non-landowners

cannot vote, and the small landowners get fewer votes

thine! Ge rigs Tasidownees tes

~ Plaintiffs seek an order of this’ court enjoining de-

fendant, from giving effect to these sections and requir-

ing defendant to submit a plan whereby all residents

be permitted only one vote regardless of land-owner-

_ At the outset, defendant asks this court to abstain

from rendering a decision, but abstention is not proper

in this case as the California Supreme Court has al-

ready upheld the constitutionality of these two sections.

Defendant is a water storage district organized in

1926 under California law which limits its activities to

the development ‘and improvement of the water supply

within the district, thus benefiting the land which alone

bears the cost.

It performs no governmental functions of general

concern to the populace and provides no service to the

general public such as found by the court in Burrey v.

Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District recently

decided by the Supreme Court of California.

‘The State of California has a compelling interest in

the development of its water resources, and limiting

the vote to landowners is necessary to further this state

interest because it is doubtful if the District would have

been formed unless the persons paying the expenses

lignin Ae Gus “that! the” activities ‘of the ‘District

affect. the economy of the area which is of interest to

—105—

idents that are not landowners, this is an indirect

terest and not a direct, primary and substantial in-

terest that would entitle them to vote. Thus limiting the

yote to landowners in this particular water district

does not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and the

“one man, one vote” cases cited by plaintiffs are not

controlling in this special purpose district.

_ Section 41001 providing one vote for each $100 of

"assessed valuation is not unconstitutional as the bene-

_ fits and burdens to each landowner in the District are

ze ‘in proportion to the assessed value of the land, so per-

se mitting voting in the same proportion fairly distributes

the voting influence.

es x9 The remaining issue in this case is the malapportion-

‘ment of the divisions that is alleged in paragraph XII

re ‘of the complaint. Plaintiffs pray that the District be

_ fequired to submit a plan for holding all elections at

Defendant argues that sections 43730 and 41550 of

the California Water Code provide adequate State rem-

_ edies, that the remedy is not within the Civil Rights

_ California Water Code §§ 43730 and 41550 do not

‘provide an adequate State remedy for malapportion-

ment. Section 43730 pertains to improper board action

- and 41550 provides a means of forcing the board to

~ “hold an election. Section 41152 provided the redivision-

ing remedy which plaintiffs seek, but was repealed in

‘September 1969.- From: that date to the present, there

has been no adequate State remedy.

Section 39777 will not grant relief as it merely re-

lires initial segregation in divisions “possessing” the

—106—

same (general character of »water’rights-or interests in

the water“of a common’ source.” Nor does section .

41153 help, as it merely contemplates that the board

may make a redivision order; however, there is no

mandatory requirement present. oy

Where there is no State remedy and a Civil Rights

violation occurs, 42 U.S.C. .1983 has been interpreted

“to provide a remedy.°. . .” [McNeese v. Board of Edu-

cation, 373 US. 668, 6172 (1963).

_ Here we have divisions “created by a state engineer

(approved ) acting under state law, and these divisions

have been maintained by the Board of Directors also

purporting to act under state law. This action is within

42 U.S.C. 1983. [See, Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167

-(1961)}.

The present divisions have not been redivisioned for

40 years. Total assessed. valuation of the land in Di-

vision 4 is nearly three times greater than the total as-

‘sessed valuation of Division 10 (Division 4—$1,954,-

547; Division 10—$688,425). The result is that $100

of assessed valuation in Division 10 has almost the

times the voting power of $100 of assessed valuation

in Division 4. In addition, Division 4 has 110 separate

landowners, whereas Division 10 has only 4. Each. Di-

vision is entitled to one director on the District's Board

of Directors. Consequently, the 10 landowners in Di-

vision 4 have only one-third the representation on the

Board when compared to Division 10.

~ Such malapportionment presents a classic violation

of equal protection and therefore defendant is ordered

sia.

to submit a plan to correct this malapportionment

. If defendant is unable to redivision the district into

: divisions which are reasonably equal in assessed valua-

~ tion and also possess the same general character of

_ water rights or interest in the water of a common

" source as required by section 39777 of the California

. Water Code, the plan may provide for elections at

2 Dated: February 17, 1972.

M. D. Crocker

United States District Judge

Robert H. Schnacke

United States District Judge

—108—

.oSalyer and ‘Company -v- Tulare Lake Basin Water

Storage District No. F-414 Civil. ) 3

> Original filed Feb. 17, 1972.

BROWNING, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dis

senting in part: © aes ei Zp

+ Defendaist asks this:court to abstain from rendering

a decision. with .respect to California Water Code

8§ 41000' and 41001. “But the abstention rule only

where ‘the issue of state law is uncertain’ ”

isconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 438

(1971), and here the meaning of the challenged state

statutes is clear. ee Ae

‘Turning to the merits, it is clear at the outset that

the Equal Protection’ Clause “applies not only to the

challenged statutes but also t -theit implementation by

the agents or representatives of the state in the partic.

ular locality in which they exist. They are organized

for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the

in its desire to provide for the general wel-

fare of the state.” In re Madera Irrigation District, 92

Cal, 296, 317, 28 Pac. 272, 276 (1891). See Girth v.

Thompson, 11 Cal.App.2d 325, 328 (1970).°

—109—

“To evaluate the constitutionality of the challenged

- ¥Oting rules, the purpose and effect of the rules must

S-examined in the context of the district’s activity.

‘determining whether or not a state law violates the

Equal Protection Clause, we must consider the facts

and circumstances behind the law, the interest which

‘the State claims to be protecting, and the interests of

‘those who are disadvantaged by the classifications.”

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968) quoted in

_ Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621,

~ 626 (1969).

ei 1.

Exclusion of persons from the vote must be “care-

_ fully scrutinized,” and can be sustained only if “neces-

"sary to promote a compelling state interest.” Kramer v.

Union Free School District, supra, 395 U.S. at 627.*

wif

can condemn priv: i

- §§ 43530-43533. It may cooperate with and con-

¢.also Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704

fact: substantially leas interested or affected than those

the statute includes.” Id. at'632.' Thus: the interest of

the state in. confining the franchise to owners of land

in ‘the’ district: must be weighed: tthe interest of

- those said to *be disadvantaged by classification,

tama, ees of ch propery and sondendornig

Atiiik view, ay Aislin had hited ‘a compiling ree

son for disenfranchisement of non-owner, non-lessee

residents of the district, but not, contrary to the ma-

jority’s holding, for the exclusion of lessees of district

land.

‘The relevant facts may be briefly summarized.

Mauch of California’s agricultural land suffers from

too little water or, intermittently, from too much. Con-

servation, distribution, and control of the water supply

are major’ state concerns.° The California Legislature

has authorized a wide variety of special instrumental-

ities, including water storage districts, to provide a

act Goal to Wilke picbletas “Ga. a iocal: basis

These special purpose agencies are credited with “vast-

ly expanding water distribution facilities” in the state.

Rogers & Nichols, Water for California, Vol. 2, § 448,

at 35,

The defendant water storage district consists of 193,-

000 acres of intensively cultivated, highly fertile farm

land, The district is sparsely populated—only 78 per-

sons, including 18 children, live within its boundaries.

‘This is said to be typical of such districts because the

lands are agricultural, and because they are commonly

he alas Popaas v. Houma, supra, 395 U.S. at 704.

mem. Kolodalepi, 399 US. 204, 207, 212-213 (1970).

ay Sees California State Constitution, Article XIV, § 3;

ater Code $§ 100, 104, 105. See note 2.

—111—

atid, subject. to flooding,’ or both. Nearly 85 per cent

| ‘the Jand in the district is farmed by four corpora-

tions. The residents of the district are all employees, or

_ giembers of employees’ families, of one or another of

"the four farming corporations. Only two residents are

- landowners; not directly, but through ownership of a

ae corporation that farms about 16 per cent of the dis-

s trict’s land.

~_. Landowners have a direct and substantial interest in

the efficient and effective management of the district.

_ In keeping with the purpose of water storage districts,

_ defendant district is authorized to plan and execute

_ projects “for the acquisition, appropriation, diversion,

_ storage, conservation, and distribution of water.” Calif.

Water Code § 42200.’ Defendant district has adopted

and executed three such projects since its formation in

_ 1924, These projects involved the purchase and stor-

_ age of water for irrigation of lands within the district

s and the construction of a water delivery system. Each

i Project required a multi-million dollar expenditure. In

x with the statute (Calif. Water Code

ie 46176), the costs were assessed upon the lands of

“the district in proportion to benefits received by each

fact, 7 |

', The economic burden from district projects cannot

a on non-owner, non-lessee residents. There are no

a "TNearly half of the land in the defendant district was flooded

ue One third of the district still remains under water.

$12

forms of non-property oriented taxes, aSsessments, or

other means through which. district costs could be -

spread to others. Cf. Cipriano v. City.of Houma, 395

US; 701, 705.(1969); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399

US. 204, 209-10 (1970). aed

The district performs no governmental function and

provides no service of direct concern to residents of the

district. Cf. Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 US. at 206,

209. Its activities relate solely to the storage and dis-

tribution of water for use in farming the land.° These

functions and services would not differ at all if no one

lived in the district. The district has nothing to do with

furnishing police and fire protection, schools, roads,

and other governmental services and facilities usually

provided to residents of an area. For that reason, peo

ple who happen to reside within the physical bound-

aries of the district are not constituents of the officers

or board of diréctors of the district in any real sense.

As employees of the farming corporations, residents

of the district have an interest in the success of the

farm operation and, hence, in the activities of the dis

trict that contribute to the success of those operations.

But this interest is no different in kind or degree

from the interest of other employees of the farming

s who do not reside in the district, and is

a

tions. If residents are constitutionally entitled to vote in

_ district elections because of their interest as employees,

~ gotoo are’ non-resident employees and, perhaps, all

’. other economically affected non-residents.

© Against this factual background, it is possible to

_ ¢valuate the state’s interest in limiting the franchise and

the’ impact of the limitation upon disenfranchised

as tases aad residents.

"The state’s interest in the management of its water

- Tesources, and, therefore, in the creation and effective

operation’ of water storage districts and similar agen-

_ ies, is obviously a vital one. Limitation of the fran-

_ thise to those who own or lease district land is neces-

_ gary to further this compelling state interest for two

% Teasons.

First, the limitation is necessary to induce landown-

_ ers to join in the creation of such districts. It is incon-

- eeivable that the non-resident owners, controlling 85

_ pet cent of the land in the defendant district, would

_ “have agreed to formation of the district or its continued

- “existence had they been denied control over the selec-

tion and implementation of the multi-million dollar

- @istrict projects designed solely to benefit the lands of

_ the’ district and to be paid for entirely by assessment

“upon those lands. See Schindler v. Palo Verde Irriga-

tion District, 1 Cal.App.3d 831, 839, 82 Cal. Rptr. 61

©). “There are, in fact, problems that make it neces-

to limit the vote... .” v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S.

213 .(1970). We are told that some California water stor.

have no residents, or only a nominal number. Unless

of an interest in the district’s land were a permissible

pc. Eeneenlee, such districts could not function at all.

~” This footnote is continued on next page)

the respective districts.”

Turning to those who are assertedly disadvantaged,

it is evident from the foregoing discussion that the in-

terest of residents who neither own nor lease property

within the district is substantially less significant than

that of the owners, and is both remote and indirect.

Their exclusion from district elections can have only a

minimal impact upon them, and is amply justified by

the compelling state interest.

I cihanthindanm otceccsntad capeslor ers 2 Phoe-

e > nix v. Kolodziejski, supra, 399 U.S. 204, 210-22."

* aad: obviously the state’s interest in intelligent and re-

_ sponsible decisions regarding the district's water man-

- agement program is not advanced by excluding those

- who actually farm the land.

_* ~The only substantial question is whether lessees

must be excluded to induce landowner participation.

- Nothing «ih the record supports an affirmative answer;

_ and the contrary is, strongly ‘suggested by the fact that

- the four corporations that farm 85 per cent of the

‘district’s land are major lessees of land as well as the

Thus, excluding non-owner, non-lessee residents

"vances the state’s overall interest in intelligent and ef-

_ fective water resources development by encouraging the

; " ~ formation of water storage districts and by helping as-

‘sure informed and interested voters in distriét elections.

II

Since ownership of a property interest in district

3 -‘Yand may be required as a qualification for voting in

. water storage district elections, it might seem to follow

that it would also be pérmissible to weight the votes in

: “proportion to the value of the voter’s land, as the ma-

' jority holds. See Schindler v. Pablo Verde Irrigation

_ District, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d at 839. Brief consider-

een demonstrates, however, that this is not so.

thatthe lessees might obtain a

from the lessor as allowed "41002.

od

—t6—

Ina wide variety of contexts the Supreme Court has

emphasized ‘that where an election concerns the ex-.

ercise of important governmental powers having a sub-

stantial’ impact upon all members of. the» particular

electorate, as here, the state is required to insure that

the vote of every member of the electorate counts the

same, so far as practicable, as that of every other mem

ber of the electorate.“ In Hadley: v. Junior College

District, 397 U.S. 50; 58-59 (1970), Mr. Justice Black

_ summarized the Supreme Court's position in language

applicable to this case:

“[A] State may, in certain, cases, limit the right

to vote to,a particular group or class of, people:

As we said before, ‘{v]iable local governments

may need many innovations, numerous combi-

nations of old and new. devices, great flexibility

in municipal arrangements to meet changing ur

ban conditions. We see nothing in the Constitution

to. prevent experimentation.’ [Sailors v. Board of

Education, v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105,

110-11 (1967)] But once a State has decided to

use the process of popular election and ‘once the

class of, voters is chosen and their qualifications

specified, we see no constitutional way by which

equality of voting power may be. evaded.’ Gray

y. Sanders,,.372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963)” (em-

phasis added).

‘Avery v. Midland - 300 US. 474, 485 (1968);

Swann vAdams, 385 U.S. 440, (1967); Lucas v. Colorado Gen.

Amant, 377.U.S. 713 (1964); Burns v. 384 US.

73 (1 i vy. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 Sepia) Davis v.

a my US 678 (1964); Maryland Committee v. ‘awes, 377

‘US. 656 (1964); WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 US. 633

(1964); v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964); Wi

v. S76 US: 1, 7-8 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U

368, 379-90 (1963). nee

*

)

>

—117—

Yi dd. at 56. As Justice White said in Phoenix v.

when all citizens are affected in important ways by a

governmental decision subject to a referendum, the

Constitution does not permit weighted voting or the

— of otherwise qualified citizens from the fran-

2 ‘Defendant | has identified no compelling state interest

OE Wve

owners would decline to participate in the formation

of a water storage district if each vote weighed equally.

A Majority of the number of landowners is normally

"required to form such a district (Calif. Water Code

~ $ 39400), ** and a majority of the number of land-

ywners voting is required to approve a district project.

elligent and responsible elections is served by weighted

g. There is nothing in the record to support the

ption that a small landowner i is less likely than a

on ng of water development problems that is requisite to

“intelligent and responsible voting on the affairs of a

water storage district..Cf. Harper v. Virginia Board of

9 2 i ions, 383 U.S. 663, 688 (1966). And the land-

~gwner’s interest in finding and implementing solutions

whe alternative is “not less than 500 a each of

hom is the holder of title to land therein and which petitioners

clude the holders of title to not less than 10 percent in value of

he land included within the proposed district.” § 39400.

folodziejski, supra, 399 U.S. at 209, “Presumptively,

the lesser absolute share of the cost of district projects

he may’* be ed to.bear, may impose @ greater

‘burden. As: Wisdom ‘said in a -related. context,

“In ‘terms of voting responsibility, there is no necessary

correlation: between the. amount. of any ‘assessment and

the degree of interest a taxpayer may have in a par-

ticular bond issue. A ten thousand dollar ‘house to one

person may mean more to that person than a hundred

thousand dollar house. to another.” Stewart v. Parish

School Board of Parish of St. Charles, 310 F. Supp.

1172, 1179 (E.D. La, 1970), affd 400 U.S. 884

(1970). See also Burry y. Embarcadero Municipal

Improvement District, 5 Cal.2d 671 (1971).

The order of the California Department of Water

Resources approving the formation of the defendant

district divided the district into eleven divisions for elec-

tion of directors to the district’s board.”

: Each division elects one director, but the number

of landowners in the divisions varies from 110 in di-

3 —119—

‘vision four to four in division ten." While the record

‘does not show the number of lessees in each division,

_, there is no reason to believe that the gross malappor-

< tionment among the divisions will be corrected merely

by. including lessees among those qualified to vote.

‘Such. malapportionment does indeed present a

lassic: violation of equal protection. See Reynolds v.

Sims; 377 U.S. 533, 562-63 & n.40 (1964). As Mr.

‘Fustice Black said in Hadley, supra, after finding that

‘dmportant governmental functions were involved having

alficient * impact throughout the constitutency, “when

‘members of an elected body are chosen from separate

districts, each district must be established on a basis

that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal

umber of voters can vote for proportionally equal

numbers of officials.” 397 U.S. at 56.

+ It is suggested that the apportionment reflects com-

pliance with the statutory directive that division lines

be drawn “so as to segregate into separate divisions

lands possessing the same general character of water

- fights.” See note/17. It is unnecessary to consider

he this would justify the result, if true. The rec-

is clear that the divisional lines were not drawn on

is basis.” The record also demonstrates that the

ee wee, the, | of the district

ne of the land in division four is $1.954-547, while that of

ion ten is $688,425.

= ‘and Estimate of Cost for Project 1, states at pages 73-74:

“The proposed divisions follow generally the lines of exist-

ing reclamation districts. It is also understood that they are

a. 8 Fe een Heme By the

parties to the agreement. . .

—120— ‘

mentary directive is irrelevant to the drawing of di

statutory directive is irrelevant to 7 :

| vision’ lines:’in the-defendant district 03 ang water

f nia ‘ oS he Key

: Tae es ae ae oe

the statute ‘(see

is i > 2 ey i. ae

aovaanes oR

fn

9

fiver

—121—

Notice From Clerk to Counsel March 10, 1972.

~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Office of the Clerk

5408 Federal Building

1130 O Street

% Fresno, California.

-C. Ray Robinson %

RE: F-414-Civ.

Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Watér

irsuant to the order of the Hon. M. D. Crocker. You

re hereby notified that JUDGMENT (heretofore filed

m February 17, 1972) in each of the above-entitled

7 cases was entered in the docket on March 10, 1972,

% pursuant to Rule 77(d) F. R. C. P. When the time for

CLERK, U. & DISTRICT COURT,

BY .

D.D. BUTLER, Deputy Clerk