# Motion to Affirm — 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%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Motion to Affirm - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 410 U.S. 719 ## Text SUBJECT INDEX : : Page Motion of Appellee Tulare Lake Basin Water Stor- age District, Pursuant to Rule 16 1.(e), to Af- firm the Judgment From Which an Appeal Has Been Taken The Statutes Involved on This Appeal The Decision of the Trial Court The Arguments of Appellants Are so Unsubstan- tial as Not to Need Further Argument TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED ase Ha 6A oy figs 9 ROP Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Watershed Improvement District, .... Wyo. ..... 490 P.2d 1069 (1971) Burrey v. Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District, 5 Cal.3d 671 Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) .. Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1 (1971) Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 (1970) Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 US. 663 (1966) Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621 4, Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970) . Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) Schindler v. Palo Verde Irrigation District, 1 Cal. App.3d 831 (1969) Stewart v. Parish School Board, 310 F. Wane. 1172, aff'd, 400 U.S. 884 (1970) (Rules of Court, Rule 16 1.(e) Statutes ‘California Water Code, Sec. 39061 California Water ‘Code, California Water Code, California Water Code, Sec. 42355 California Water Code, Sec. 42500(E) California Watet Code, Sec. 46150 California Water Code, IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1971 No. 71-1456 SALYER LAND ComPaNy, a California corporation, C. EVERETTE SALYER; FRED SALYER; LAWRENCE ELLISON; and HAROLD SHAWL, Appellants, vs. TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DisTRICT, a public district, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. MOTION TO AFFIRM. Motion of Appellee Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Pursuant to Rule 16 1.(e), to Affirm the Judgment From Which an Appeal Has Been Taken. Appellants have appealed from that part of the judg- ment entered March 10, 1972, which denies an injunc- tion restraining the enforcement, operation and execu- tion of Sections 41000 and 41001 of the California Water Storage District Law.’ Migs Kolion of filed March 14, 1972, which is printed the Gage 24 at the Jecleeictionel Statement Ct Aspameee. saaiiliiiin . Appellee Tulare’ Lake Basin’ Water Storage District moves the Court to affirm the judgment below on the grotnd that it is manifest that the questions on. which the decision of the cause on appeal depends are so un- — as not to need further argument. Nature of the Case. ‘The ‘Appeliahts challenge ‘the constitutionality of those sections of the Water Code: of California which limit the right to vote in & general election of a water storage district to holders of title.to land, and further, ‘ provide thiat-each voter may cast one vote for each one hundred dollars ($100) - worth. of land. They assert that such a limitation is contrary to the thrust of the one-man, one-vote decisions of this Court; _ On the other hand, it is the Appellee’s position that, under California law, a water storage district is a limit- ed-purpose district formed to improve the beneficial use of water. Section 39061 of the Water Code of the State of. California a ‘the mature of a water storage district as: ES “The districts formed pursuant to this division ; are..of the nature of irrigation> reclamation, or .. drainage districts in respect to all matters con- - ‘templated in the provisions of the Constitution of. othe State of California relating to irrigation, recla- gots _ mation or drainage.” o a such, a water storage district is concerned aby _with the beneficial development of water for agricultural purposes. This is in furtherance of “a compelling state ‘ interest.” Furthermore, the district does not possess nor _ exercise any general powers of government as to which, “it may be said, all citizens have a direct and primary ey ‘interest. Rather, its functions are limited to the develop- mient:and improvement of the water supply within the district, This is for the benefit of the lands within the district which alone bear the cost of the district's proj- ects. Therefore, it is proper and a e that the legislature of the State of California limite the right to vote in district general elections to holders of title to land. The Statutes Involved on This Appeal. ~ Sections 41000 and 41001 of the California Water Storage District Law (Water Code, Sections 41000 and 41001) are as follows: “Section 41000. Qualification. Only the hold- ers of title to land are entitled to vote at a general election.” “Section 41001. Vote in precinct; number of votes. Each 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), or fraction thereof, worth of land, exclusive of improvements, minerals, and mineral rights therein, in the precinct.” ; The Decision of the Trial Court. With respect to California Water Code, Section “41000, the trial court said: pein © Sika ths citi cd ste trict affect the economy of the area which is of _ interest to residents that are not landowner, this is an indirect interest and not a direct, primary and substantial interest that would entitle them to vote. Thus limiting the vote to landowners in this particular water district does not violate plaintiffs’ naw. constitutional rights, and the. ‘one man, one vote’ “eases cited by plaintiffs are not controlling in this © special: Purpose: district.” ” With respect to California, Water Code, Section 41001, the trial court said: . “Section 41001 providing one vote tor each $100 of assessed valuation is not unconstitutional as the benefits and burdens to each landowner in the District are in proportion to the assessed value .. «Of the land, so permitting voting in the same pro- - portion fairly distributes the voting influence.” “The Arguments of Appellants Are 0 Unsubstantial a Not to Need Further Argument. "Appellants seek to avoid the decision of the trial court by citing “one man, one vote” cases of the type “determined by the trial court to be not applicable to this case.? Each of these cases involved situations where voters, having a direct and substantial interest in a gov- ernmental process, were denied the opportunity to par- ticipate. ‘Such denial is clearly unconstitutional. This is not the situation before the Court. ~ A water storage district limits its activities to the de- velopment and improvement of the water supply within the district. It operates through the implementation of a District Project, which in turn can be enacted only by at me ate es a aaa ean mal " §Stewart v. Parish School Board, 310 F. Supp. 1172, aff'd, ; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); 4 eH US S. 533. (1964); Harper v. Virginia State Board 3.U.S. 663 (1 3); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 US. 701 (1969); Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970); Hadley v. Junior College Distr, 397 U.S. 50 (1970); Gordon pile majority of the qualified voters voting at a special elec- tion to approve a District. Project (California Water Code, Section 42355). Furthermore, a : district project must be approved as to economic feasibility by the District Securities Commission of the State of California (California Water Code, Section 42500 (E)). The cost of any district project is borne by the lands within the district assessed upon the basis of benefits conferred in the land-as determined by an outside board of as- sessment commissioners (California Water Code, Sec- tion 46150, 46175 (E)). ' Therefore, it can readily be seen why the trial court determined that the district “. . . performs no govern- mental function 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 Im- provement District [5 Cal.3d 671] recently decided by the Supreme Court of California.” The Trial Court further stated: “The State of Cali- fornia 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 thie expenses could control them.” This reasoning is similar to that expressed by the California District Court of Appeal in Schindler v. Palo Verde Irrigation District, 1 Cal.App.3d 831 (1969), in which the Court upheld the statute creating the Palo Verde Irrigation District in which voting rights were ‘apportioned among landowners in proportion to the value of their land. In that case, the Court said: “The state clearly has a compelling interest in the reclamation of waste lands through flood pro- “+ tection, ‘drainage and: irrigation works. (See Peo- >: ple ime \Steramento’ Drainage Dist., 155 Cal. 373, “9379-381: [103 P.:207].) In many circumstances, anal “suchas undoubtedly existed in Palo Verde: Valley «fim 1923, the lands to be reclaimed are’ virtually ~ ‘uninhabited. ‘The grant of election’ franchise to land owners, resident and non-resident, corporate . and individual,-is: necessary to ‘further a compel- > i jingstate interest.’ Absent the voting : qualifica- . tion provided by ‘the Act, it is doubtful that: the District could have been formed or functioned. -,.) The. activities of the District no. doubt. affect the »» ecomomy of the area and to. that. extent District se: affairs may be of interest to all inhabitants irre- ‘7 /Spective of land ownership, but such general in- -" terest, standing alone, cannot be said to consti- ; tute,,as a. matter of law, a direct, primary and sub- stantial interest entitling all inhabitants to vote. Such i general economic interest is indirect, not pri- Kies : mary and substantial. (See Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Kings County Water Dist., 47 Cal.2d 140, 144- - 145 [302 P.2¢ 1).) : “Since the benefits and burdens accrue to each -in proportion to the extent of. land _” owned, the grant of franchise in proportion to the _ , assessed value of land ownership fairly distributes * “voting influence among those primarily and direct- Blyth rigs taptaah ani en ei arn has in the District. We conclude that the "method of allocating voting rights among " aks owners satisfies the constitutional standards pre- scribed by Kramer.” y Another: recent state court decision which held that the one-man, one-vote rule did not apply to limited- a. purpose districts is that of the Supreme Court of Wyom- ing in Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Watershed Improvement District, .... Wyo. ....,..490 P.2d 1069 41971). That case involved a limited-purpose district in which a landowner was entitled to one vote - for ach-acre of land owned by- him. The Court upheld the constitutionality of that statute analogizing it to a corporation where a shareholder casts as many votes as he owns shares. Appellants suggest that decisions such as the fore- going are judicial aberrations created by judges who do not undérstand the meaning of a republican form of government, but instead, prefer the comforts of an oli- garchy. We are.even told that Mr. James Madison might feel uncomfortable in the company of such autocrats. This rhetoric not only overlooks the fact that Madison espoused an electoral system where only freeholders could vote in all elections, but totally disregards the fact that this Court has always recognized the sovereign power of the State to seek to further a compelling State interest in a variety of ways. In the case at bar, the State of California was able to accomplish the objective of having a large and unin- habited area of land, subject to devastating cycles of flooding and drought, reclaimed and brought into production through the instrumentality of the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, among other entities. “By banding together, the landowners were able to un- dertake three multimillion dollar projects to improve their water supply. They paid for it entirely. There is nothing unconstitutional in such an undertaking. This Court’s decision in Kramer delineated with care the area in which the states may legislate in this fashion. The-case at bar falls well within this protected area. MaKe oes “Granting the landowners the right to vote in a Cali- tender ‘arly question of any substance to this Court. If the matter were before the Court on a writ of cer- tiorari, it would be denied. : The judgment of the Court below should be affirmed ‘in accordance with Rule 16 1(e). Dated: May 30, 1972. © Rosert M. Newett, ‘ ERNEST M. Crark, Jr., - By Ropert M. NEWELL, Attorney for Appellee. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0118%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.