# Appendix — Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0118%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 410 U.S. 719 ## Text 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 }* ~ . : 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 ; - 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 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? >'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: - 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 * 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 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- 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0118%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.