United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co.
70 S. Ct. 955, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2467, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1231 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When Congress authorizes a federal reclamation project pursuant to the Reclamation Act, it directs the government to acquire state-created water rights through its power of eminent domain and provide compensation, even if the project is on a navigable waterway where the government could have asserted its superior navigation servitude.
Facts:
- The United States initiated the Central Valley Project in California, which included constructing the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River.
- The purpose of the Friant Dam was to divert the river's water through a system of canals to irrigate more than a million acres of land, some as far as 160 miles away.
- Claimants, including Gerlach Live Stock Co., owned 'uncontrolled grass lands' riparian to the San Joaquin River downstream from the dam.
- These lands depended on the natural, annual, seasonal overflow of the river, which saturated the soil and enabled forage and pasturage to grow.
- The construction and operation of the Friant Dam would end these seasonal overflows, effectively stopping the flow of the river past the claimants' lands and rendering them barren.
- The claimants' use of the water was for the natural inundation of their grasslands, a right recognized under California law.
Procedural Posture:
- Riparian landowners, including Gerlach Live Stock Co., filed claims against the United States in the Court of Claims.
- The Court of Claims rendered six awards in favor of the claimants, finding they were entitled to just compensation for the taking of their riparian rights.
- The United States appealed the awards and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the United States have to compensate riparian landowners for the destruction of their state-law water rights when it diverts water from a navigable river for a reclamation project that Congress also declared to be for the purpose of improving navigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. When Congress directs that a project proceed under the Reclamation Act, it elects to recognize and compensate for any state-created water rights taken, rather than asserting its superior navigation servitude to take them without compensation. Although Congress invoked its navigation power in the project's authorizing statutes, it also explicitly directed the Secretary of the Interior to proceed under the Reclamation Act of 1902. Section 8 of that Act requires the government to conform with state laws relating to the 'control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water' and to respect 'any vested right acquired thereunder.' The consistent administrative practice of the Bureau of Reclamation, which involved purchasing such water rights and reporting these costs to Congress, confirms this interpretation. Furthermore, while a 1928 California constitutional amendment limited riparian rights to 'reasonable and beneficial use' and sought to prevent waste, it did not extinguish the underlying property right, which remains compensable when taken for public use. Public interest may require appropriation of the water, but it does not require expropriation without payment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the United States must compensate the claimants, but not because of a constitutional requirement. Constitutionally, there are no private property rights in the waters of a navigable river superior to the government's navigation servitude. However, Congress has the power to create statutory liability where none exists constitutionally, and it did so here through the Reclamation Act of 1902. Section 8 of that Act constitutes a congressional agreement to pay for vested water rights acquired under state law, on navigable and non-navigable streams alike. This conclusion is supported by the long-standing administrative practice of the Bureau of Reclamation. I dissent, however, from the award of interest. Because the liability is purely statutory and not a Fifth Amendment taking, interest is not recoverable unless the statute explicitly allows it, which the Reclamation Act does not.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between the federal government's dominant navigation servitude and its reclamation projects in the western states. It establishes the principle that Congress can choose its method of action: it can either assert its superior navigation power to alter waterways without compensating for resulting damages to riparian rights, or it can proceed under its eminent domain power via reclamation laws, which requires respecting and paying for vested state-law water rights. The case demonstrates the Court's willingness to find a congressional intent to compensate by looking at the specific statutes invoked, the project's purpose, and long-standing administrative practice. This precedent provides a crucial protection for water rights holders in states governed by reclamation law, ensuring that federal water projects do not automatically extinguish state-recognized property interests without compensation.
