THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley
PREDATORY STREAM ADJUDICATION BY RECLAMATION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is a draft, growing list of watersheds where Reclamation forced or joined stream adjucations. Reclamation is expert at stonewalling requests for information, so this is a list culled from Westlaw, etc. Without Reclamation cooperation, finding stream adjudications requires reading between the lines in these cases and other sources. It is not easy to tell which streams were adjudicated because of them or with their participation so this list is overly broad, to be narrowed later; cases here that do not involve a stream adjudication are here as a "place holder" pending completion of research. Since most of this is from reported cases only, some adjudications may be missing.

RECLAMATION'S SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION SCHEME: suits so huge, against so many people with such fragmented interests, nobody could fight them. In each case, it was Reclamation vs. the watershed, with nobody speaking for the watershed.

For instance, with Angle for Stony Creek in California, Orr Ditch for Truckee in Nevada (twice, actually, but the second time it got thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court), and Umatilla in Oregon (and Boise River, Idaho, which was thrown out by the District Court): Reclamation implemented the litigation strategy of moving into a watershed which already had extensive although usually primitive irrigation, setting in place its project, waiting until statutes of limitation, etc., rolled over, and then suing so many people over so many years that no one could afford an appeal or to keep a skilled lawyer monitoring the record full time. The Angle record is some 30-40,000 pages, the Orr Ditch record half again as large. Because of this massive case size, nobody could afford to appeal from these on the merits of the adjudications, and most defendants could do no more than walk away from their rights, the rights they earned by accepting the Government's homestead offers, settling the land, building farms and communities, and hard work over many decades. Although unfair, in most jurisdictions Reclamation had the right to do this. But in California, their wholesale seizure of riparian rights without compensation was illegal under California law (and thus Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, thus also illegal under Federal law), so Reclamation managed to get it past the judge by deceiving him, see Fraud on the Court section on my http://www.mjbarkl.com/wars.htm page .

Because of Reclamation's charter, most of these are in the NINTH CIRCUIT. This list began with the Angle record wherein are also mentioned the Truckee and Umatilla adjucations. Oliver Perry Morton, their apparent, minimally-supervised "independent contractor" legal gunslinger, actually seemed proud of what he'd done. His name in Westlaw yields several of these. No list of these cases appears in the public record, they appear by brief narrative or implication or footnote from reported cases on collateral issues. Thus, except for the four streams mentioned above, I am unsure how many other streams were attacked by Reclamation in this manner. I will add Reclamation stream adjudications to this list as I learn of them and delete them as they prove to be irrelevant:

Decree compelled:

• Stony Creek, CA - ANGLE DECREE, E.D.Calif. Equity 30, 80-cv-00583-LKK Per the Opening Brief and the Findings, before amendment by the "Settlement of Proceedings", 596 named defendants, all but 113 failed to make proofs, and of those 113, most lost the bulk of their riparian rights; mentioned in Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp 1, 74
  collateral issues:
  • U.S. v. H.C. Angle, 760 F. Supp. 1366 (03/21/1991),
  • rev'd Wackerman Dairy, Inc. et al., v. Wilson et al., 7 F.3d 891 (10/21/1993)
  • Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. U.S., E.D.CA 91-01128-LKK (following U.S. v. GCID, 91-01074 )
  
  
• Black River, NM, see Pecos River below
  
  
• [ Sacramento River, CA, Reclamation forced one-sided, convoluted contracts down the throats of all the Sacramento diverters under threat of stream adjudication, and then violated those contracts at will; deposition of GCID Manager Robert Clark, 05/27/1992 on file in GCID v. USA, USDC ED-Cal 91-1128 - Doc 59 Exhibits 10 & 11 suggest the opposite, that it was Reclamation that negotiated the contracts because it wanted to avoid litigation and Congress told it to ]
  
• Walker River [Not Reclamation?], NV, U.S. v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 104 F.2d 234 C.A.9 06/05/1939; U.S. v. Walker River Irr. Dist. et al., 11 F.Supp. 158 D.C.Nev. 06/06/1935, 14 F.Supp. 10 D.C.Nev. 03/21/1936 Antelope Valley Mutual Water Co., Pacific Livestock v. T.B. Rickey et al. DECREE NO. 731 [not reported], Bridgeport Reservoir, Topaz Reservoir, f. 1924, to Special Master 03/22/1928, 5 days of hearings on the findings, tour of facilities, Master determined 26.25 cfs for 2,100 acres, USA wanted 150 cfs for 10,000 acres; USA encouraged patents upstream and then sued to get the water back for the reservation, [this one is backwards: ] USA declined court invitation to participate in the Rickey adjudication ; interprets Sierra Pacific riparian claim under California reasonable & beneficial Art. 14 Sec. 3 Constitutional Amendment denying Sierra Pacific a riparian right to store for power purposes, which wasn't a Section 3 issue anyway but goes beyond that and subordinates any riparian rights to the Nevada rights [in error?]. [W.C. Van Fleet for Miller & Lux? the many other Rickey Walker River cases seem irrelevant]

Decree by consent:

• Gila River / San Carlos Project - Coolidge Dam
  • Gila Valley Irr. Dist. et al. v. United States, 118 F. 2d 507 * (9th Cir. 03/10/1941, Action 1925);
    1935 Water Commissioner Decree, 1935 GLOBE EQUITY NO. 59 DECREE, 06/29/1935 Consent DECREE,
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 454 F.2d 219 * (01/19/1972)
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 959 F.2d 242 (9th Cir.1992)
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 961 F.2d 1432 *(04/17/1992)
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 31 F.3d 1428 *(07/13/1994)
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 920 F.Supp. 1444 *(D.Ariz. 03/1996) [Morton]
  • U.S. v. Gila Valley Irr. Dist., 117 F.3d 425 (06/30/1997)
• Truckee River, NV -
  • United States of America v. Floriston Pulp and Paper Company, et al., #14861, Circuit Court of the United States, Ninth Circuit, Northern District of California filed 02/24/1909 [later, United States of America v. Truckee River General Electric Company, 68-cv-00643-LKK, Consent Decree (Truckee River General Electric Decree, 1915), Condemnation action of dam on Truckee at Lake Tahoe, and set Floriston Rates - E.D. Calif.; Judgment & Decree 06/04/1915; file includes copy of Ickes Truckee River Agreement 06/13/1935 ]; Law v. Smith, 288 F. 7 04/02/1923
  • U.S.A. v. Orr Water Ditch, Equity A-3, D. Nev, final Decree 09/18/1944, f. 03/1913; ORR DITCH DECREE 09/08/1944; Harold L. Ickes - Truckee River Agreement 06/13/1935 ( Angle, USA Brief, pp. 19-20: " Service of original process was had upon some six hundred defendants, if the writer of this brief, who was identified with the proceeding on the Government's side, remembers correctly, An- [p. 20] swers were filed by some 300-odd defendants" ; mis-labeled in the Angle Brief as "United States of America v. Truckee River General Electric Company"); Newlands Reclamation Project; Special Master report & proposed decree 1924; TRO 02/1926 declaring water rights as proposed by Special Master (Angle tx. p. 3110 S.T. Harding, "the adjudication proceedings brought by the Reclamation Service on that stream.")
  • Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 710 *, 06/24/1983, 81-2245 (cert granted 459 U.S. 904 (1982) together with
    • Nevada v. United States, et al., 81-2245 [?]
    • Truckee-Carson Irrigation District v. United States et al, 81-2276
    • Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District et al., 82-38
      
      
    • U.S. v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, 649 F.2d 1286 06/15/1981 "only under state law" [GET], 1297; mod 666 F. 2d 351 (1982)
      • U.S.A v. everybody (all persons presently claiming water rights to Truckee & tributaries, all Orr Ditch defendants & their successors, all 3800 Newlands farmers after amendment as indispensable parties, & TCID which was appointed to represent the Project farmers as a class), Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe intervened in support of U.S.A. f. 12/21/1973; in essence, Reclamation sued everybody in sight twice
    • U.S. v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 914 F.2d 1302 (9th Cir. 1990)
    • U.S. v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 391 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 12/14/2004)
    • Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Churchill County, Same as 391 F.3d 1077 No. 03-16654 , 03-16941 D.C. Nos. CV-73-00003-LDG , A-3-LDG [Equity A-3 ?]
    • U.S. v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 400 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 03/01/2005 amending 12/14/2004)) Nos. 03-16654 and 03-16941 D.C. Nos. CV-73-00003-LDG , A-3-LDG
    • Carson River, Alpine Decree, United States of America v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Company, a Corporation, et al., Civil No. D-183 BRT [Bruce R. Thompson], Final Decree, United States Federal District Court for the District of Nevada, October 28, 1980.]
    • more? less? is there a road map to this set of cases anywhere? maybe at http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/truckee/truckee1.cfm and 2 subsequent parts.
  • McLean v. Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist., 49 Nev 278, 245 P. 285 04/05/1926 annexed 12,672.6 acres of Newlands "There have been injected into the case the long-standing differences and animosities beween the water users under the Newlands project and the United States Reclamation Service, which do not concern this court in the least, but which seem to have been brought into the case to emphasize the position taken by certain protestants that the assessments against their lands is illegal, unfair, and without equity."
  • Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Morton, 354 F.Supp. 252
  • Northern Paiute Tribe v. U.S., 30 Ind.Cl.Comm'n 210 (1973)
  • Pyramid Lake Tribe v. U.S., 36 Ind.Cl.Comm'n 256 (1975)
  • Pyramid Lake Piute Tribe v. Hodel, D. Nev [?] 87-1281-EJG [transferred to E.D. Calif., Judge Karlton, as related case 09/18/1987 to 68-643 ?]
  • Were any of the Orr Ditch defendants California riparians? Of course, that was a consent decree. . . . Is a consent decree "consent" where you beat the opposition into submission with your great and terrible brute force power?
• Yakima Project, WA - Granger ID, 160 Wash 674, 295 P. 930 02/16/1931
  • 763 F. 2d 1032 02/06/1985
  • 1945 Consent DECREE, referred to in Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 763 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 02/06/1985 & 06/14/1985), mentions "state court action generally adjudicating water rights in the Yakima River basin", State of Washington v. Acquafella, #77-2-01484-5, Yakima County Superior Court filed 10/12/1977;
  • Moore v. Anderson, 68 F.2d 191, C.A.9 12/22/1933 Washington Irrigation Company owned Sunnyside Main Canal
    • Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 626 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1980); Decree settled only the rights of the Irrigation Districts made parties
    • Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S. 82, rights property of landowners, 02/01/1937 Washington Irrigation Company, Sunnyside Canal, Sunnyside Water Users Association, Cle Elum Reservoir for Kittitas Reclamation District & other lands, vested water right appurtenant to the land and not owned by USA; overruled (?) by Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 1949 337 U.S. 682 [too many suits against USA officials] or limited by State of New mexico v. Backer, 10 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 426 [where did New Mexico get "overruled"?]; Sunnyside Unit of the Yakima Project (Angle tx. p. 3110, S.T. Harding, Yakima adjudication)
  • Yakima River
    • Yakima Project 229 U.S. 187 1913 from 9th Circuit, Yakima Irrigation Project
    • U.S. v. West Side Irrigating Co., 230 F. 284, D.C.Wash, 01/29/1916 mentions Tieton & Sunnyside Projects,
    • West Side Irr. Co. v. U.S., 246 F. 212, C.A.98 10/15/1917 124,500 acres (appealing 230 F. 284); by agreement, a "sort of" consent decree, 10/21/1905 whereby diverters in litigation when Reclamation arrived were all required to contract as to how much they used, & Reclamation claimed the rest?; U.S. v. Union Gap Irr. Dist., 39 F.2d 46 C.A. 9 03/17/1930, Fowler Ditch Company, Last Chance Ditch
    • West Side Irr. Co. v. U.S., 269 F, 759, C.A.9 01/03/1921; from 264 F. 538 D.C. Wash. 03/29/1920;
  • Tieton Reclamation project, Garretson v. Parker, 131 Wash 360, 230 P. 139 11/20/1924; Fleming v. Reinhardt, 153 Wash. 526, 280 P. 9, 08/26/1929

Decree by ??? or no Decree?:

• Arkansas River, Twin Lakes Irrigation and Reservoir Company
• Belle Fouche, Magruder v. Belle Fourche 219 F. 79 (C.A. 8 12/08/1914) Bell Fourche project, Huntley (MT) Reclamation Project 1905
• Boise Project, ID
  • Marsters v. U.S., 236 F. 663, C.A.9 09/05/1916 "Government Boise project", government appropriation 12/04/1903, but 134 prior appropriators with adjudication begun in 1902, may be Farmers' etc., D. Co. v. Nampa, etc., Irr. Dist., 14 Idaho. 450, 94 Pac. 761 & Farmers', etc., Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho. 525, 102 Pac. 481, 05/15/1909 U.S. not a party; on advice of state Attorney General, various state officials went upon U.S. lands on 07/11/1913, cut the locks on the headgates and regulated the river as they claimed it should be, suit by U.S. followed 07/12/1913 (leading to BRYAN DECREE, below?)
  • Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dis. v. Bond 283 F. 569 D.C.Idaho 08/22/1922 J.B. Bond, Project Manager, Boise Project, Reclamation; 288 F. 51 C.A.9 04/02/1923; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dis. v. Bond 268 U.S. 50, 04/13/1925
  • Payette-Boise Project, Boise & Payette Rivers?
  • Burley v. U.S., 179 F. 1 C.A.9 07/05/1910 Payette-Boise Project, Deer Flat Reservoir, United States v. Burley, 172 F. 615 D.C.Idaho 03/29/1909 New York Canal
    • Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425 11/20/1915 Ridenbaugh Canal, New York Canal, Payette-Boise, Boise Project
      • U.S. v. Haga, 276 F. 41 D.C.Idaho 08/10/1921, Eight Mile Creek with surface waste or seepage from Boise Project; Ridenbaugh System
      • Hurst v. Idaho-Iowa Lateral & Reservoir Co., 42 Idaho 436, 246 P. 23 04/28/1926 Ridenbaugh Canal, Idaho-Iowa Reservoir, Ada County Hurst v. Idaho-Iowa Lateral & Reservoir Co., 34 Idaho 342, 202 P. 1068 09/03/1921, Carns v. Idaho-Iowa Lateral & Reservoir Co., 34 Idaho 330, 202 P. 1071 09/03/1921 & maybe U.S. v. Whitney, 176 F. 593, D.C.Idaho 02/07/1910
      • Smith v. City of Nampa, 57 Idaho 736, 68 P.2d 344 prior to 1920 N & M obtained title to Ridenbaugh Canal system, Boise Project
    • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382 02/10/1913 Boise-Payette
    • Griffiths v. Cole , 264 F. 369 D.C. Idaho 10/11/1919 Boise Project, formerly Payette-Boise Project, Deer Flat Reservoir, Black Canyon Irrigation District
    • Payette-Boise Water Users Association v. Cole 269 F.2d 159 D.C.Idaho 09/18/1920 [preliminary to a Decree?], 263 F. 734 D.C.Idaho 07/21/1919; Payette-Boise Reclamation Project, Boise Project, Boise Irrigation Project, Arrowrock Dam, New York Canal Company, Penitentiary Canal, Riverside Irrigation District, Pioneer Irrigation District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; New York Canal Co. v. Bond 265 F. 228 C.A.9 05/10/1920 ; New York Canal Co. v. U.S. 277 F. 444 D.C.Idaho 12/31/1913, Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Company
  • Boise River, U.S. v. American Ditch Ass'n, 2 F.Supp. 867, D.C. Idaho 03/31/1933 400 defendants, waters of the Boise River filed 1902, (by Farmers' Cooperative Ditch Company ?); 1913 Reclamation Service intervened in second action filed 10/03/1913; Judge dismissed this District Court complaint, Reclamation having chosen its state court forum in 1913, critical of Reclamation tactics;
    • STEWART DECREE (Judge Stewart), Farmers', etc. Co. v. Irr. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 94 P. 761 aff'd; 01/18/1906 "Stewart decree, fixing the priorities and duty of water of all of the then users of water from Boise river"; Scott v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 55 Idaho 672, 45 P.2d 1062 1934, NMID's predecessor Central Canal and Land Company
    • Hillcrest Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 24 Idaho 376, 133 P. 663 07/02/1913; Hillcrest Irr. Dist. v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. et al., 57 Idaho 403, 66 P.2d 115 02/24/1937 Boise River, Pioneer Dixie & American Ditch Association Canals under STEWART DECREE, Caldwell Highline Canal, New York Canal, Arrowrock Reservoir, Boise Irrigation Project
    • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Ass'n et al (United States, Intervenor) 50 Idaho 732, 1 P.2d 196 * 06/02/1931 S.Ct. Idaho BRYAN DECREE (Judge Bryan, District Court, Canyon County) 02/16/1929 instituted 07/1913 to determine "the priorities and duty of those rights accruing since the Stewart decree, or not therein finally determine." USA intervened, having constructed its own project & successor to interests of New York Canal Company; New York Irrigation District, Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, Farmers' Co-Operative Ditch Company
• Canadian River [?], Tucumcari, In re Arch Hurley Conservancey Dist., Hudson Irrigation Extension 52 N.M. 34, 191 P.2d 338 01/02/1948 Conchas Dam
• Colorado River/Boulder Canyon Project, Arizona v. California 283 U.S. 423 05/18/1931; Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546
  • Yuma Project, Yuma County Water Users' Ass'n v. Schlecht, 275 F. 885 *, C.A.9 11/07/1921 [& Oliver P. Morton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees] Laguna Dam, Colorado River 1904; Yuma County Water Users' Ass'n v. Schlecht, 262 U.S. 138 04/30/1923 "...contingent upon satisfactory arrangement being made with the owners of lands and vested rights...." [like Angle?]; Capron v. Van Horn, 201 Cal. 486 06/30/1927, Donley v. Van Horn, 49 Cal.App. 383, 193 P. 514 09/28/1920
• Upper Colorado tributaries:
  • Blue River, City and County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 276 P. 2d 972 10/18/1954, South Platte Water Users Association, Grand Valley Irrigation Co., Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Palisade Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Palisade Irrigation District, Fraser River Basin, Williams Fork River, Swan River tributary to Blue River, Jefferson Creek tributary to Tarryal Creek tributary to South Platte River, Denver Blue River (& Ten Mile Creek/Snake Creek or Snake River) Project, Dillon Reservoir and (Montezuma) Tunnel, Two Forks Reservoir, Mayflower Reservoir, Continental-Hoosier Ditch and Pipe Line, Henrylyn Irrigation District,, Stanley Reservoir Company
    • South Platte Water Users Association, Cheesman Reservoir, Eleven-mile Canyon Reservoir, Antero Reservoir, Webster Tunnel
    • Green Mountain Reservoir and hydroelectric plants No. 5 & 6 (USA) Elliott Creek Canal, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Colorado-Big Thompson reclamation and power project, USA & District withdrew and tried District Court upon seeing the proposed Decree [? complex. No. Colo. withdrew but still appeared asserting no authority over U.S.A. rights?]; withdrawal deemed to be only a withdrawal of pleadings, U.S.A. having chosen its forum Elliott Creek to Blue River; Colorado River Water Conservation District,
    • Grand Valley Reclamation Project
    (Other) Colorado River (?), Trimmier v. Carlton, 116 Tex. 572, 296 S.W. 1070, 06/04/1927 dam near Bronte in Coke County
• Columbia Basin Reclamation Project, U.S. v. Anderson 109 F.Supp 755 01/29/1953
• Crow Creek, Finley Creek, Jocko River, Agency Creek, Scheer v. Moody, 48 F.2d 327, D.C.Mont. 03/09/1931 Flathead Indian Reservation looted? Flathead Reclamation Project [Not Reclamation?]; Moody v. Johnston 66 F.2d 666 C.A.9 07/27/1933; Mud Creek, Flathead Indian Reservation 22 F.Supp. 316, D.C. Mont. 09/15/1937, Flathead Irrigation Project, U.S. v. McIntire 101 F.2d 650 C.A.9 01/31/1939, Pablo Feeder Canal, Pablo Ditch
• Deschutes River, OR, Broughton's Estate v. Central Oregon Irr. Dist., 165 Or. 435, 101 P.2d 425 04/23/1940, Arnold Irrigation District, Decree on the river, circuit court for Deschutes County 02/10/1928, modified on appeal;
  • In re Water Rights of Deschutes River and Tributaries, 134 Or. 623, 286 P. 563, 03/25/1930, 294 P. 1049 12/30/1930; Carey Act; Columbia Deschutes Power Co., Central Oregon Irrigation Company, Central Oregon Irrigation District - DIETRICH DECREE 07/09/1921; Cline Falls Power Company, Deschutes Power & Light Company, Walker Basin Irrigation Company, North Canal Co., North Canal Dam, Arnold Irr. Co., Jefferson Water Conservancy Dist., Pilot Butte Canal, Central Oregon Canal, Deschutes Irrigation & Power Company , Crooked River, Long Butte Canal, Crane Prairie Reservoir; Bend Water, Light & Power Company, Little Deschutes River, Crescent Creek, Tramalo Irrigation District Falls Irrigation Canal, Deschutes Reclamation & Irrigation Company, Suttles Lake Irrigation District, Powell Butte Irrigation Dsitrict, Ochoco Irrigation District;
  • Broughton v. Stricklin, 146 Or. 259, 28 P.2d 219, 12/19/1933
  • In re Determination of Relative Rights to Use of Waters of Deschutes River, 165 Or. 435, 108 P.2d 276 12/17/1940
• Fresno River, Madera Irrigation District v. USA, et al., USDC ED-Cal Civ. S-95-0058-LKK, NRDC Intervenor, Hidden Reservoir, Hensley Dam, Madera Irrigation District
• Hood River, OR, in re Hood River, 114 Or. 112, 227 P. 1065 07/29/1924 No Reclamation project, but: "This brings us to a consideration of the Water Code, Chapter 216, Laws 1909, and chapter 221, Laws 1909 (Or. L. Sections 5685-5717). The adoption of those statutes was influenced by the officials of the United States Reclamation Service, and was designed to abolish riparian rights in this state in so far as constitutional inhibitions would permit, and to substitute therefor the rules governing water and water rights in Wyoming, Colorado, and other states which early rejected the common-law doctrine of riparian rights. Wiel on Water Rights in the Western States (3d Ed.) Section 124"
• Kings River, Pine Flat Reservoir 535 F.2d 1093 08/05/1976?
• Klamath River, 67 Fed.Cl. 504 08/31/2005; Klamath County v. Colonial Realty Co., 139 Or. 311, 7 P.2d 976 02/16/1932 Klamath Water Users Association Smith v. Enterprise Irr. Dist. 160 Or. 372, 85 P.2d 1021 01/04/1939 Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, C.A.9 1999
• Malad River, ID; King Hill Project, In re King Hill Irr. Dist 37 Idaho 89, 221 P. 839 04/23/1923
  • Willow Creek, tributary to Malheur River, OR, In Re Willow Creek, 74 Or. 592 144 P. 505 10/20/1914 146 P. 475 02/16/1915 Lower Willow Creek Water Users' Association, Willow River Land & Irrigation Company, Ltd., Malheur Irrigation Co., ; Willow River Project, Upper Reservoir/Reservoir No. 3, Reservoir No. 2, Pole Creek Reservoir, Black Creek; Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Willow River Land & Irrigation Co., 187 F. 466 11/10/1910, 204 F. 516 C.A.9 03/03/1913, 201 F. 203 C.A.9 11/12/1912 Orchards Water Co. Cow Creek, Cove Springs Reservoir, Reclamation Service 1905 but abandoned? Turner Creek, Kern Creek, Burnt River & Eldorado Ditch; Phipps Creek
• Milk River Project, St. Mary Reservoir, Blackfeet Reservation, "appropriation without compensation" 237 U.S. 413, 04/05/1915
  • Milk River, MT, Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564, 01/06/1908, Winters v. U.S., 143 F. 740, C.A.9, 02/05/1906, Winters v. U.S., 148 F. 684 C.A.9 10/01/1906 appeal from the final decree, WINTERS DECREE ?, affirmed Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Implied reservation of water doctrine for Indians; Scathing indictment by Congress of Reclamation, 1913 H.R. Rep No. 1506, 62nd Cong. 3rd Session 6 (1913), benefit certain interests at the cost of others; Matheson Ditch Company, Cook's Irrigation Company
• Missouri River, Broadwater-Missouri Water Users' Ass'n v. Montana Power Co., 139 F.2d 998 C.A.9 01/04/1944 Not Reclamation, Judge Denman's dissent interesting
• North Platte Irr. Project, Ft. Laramie Unit 42 Wyo 229, 293 P. 373 11/19/1930
  • Sheep Creek, Neb., Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United States 269 F. 80 C.A.8 11/15/1920 source Interstatge Canal seeping into Sheep Creek, U.S. v. Ramshorn Ditch Co., 254 Fed. 842 D.C.Neb. 12/20/1918 North Platte Irrigation Project; Pathfinder Project? Farmers' or Tri-State Canal?
  • Red Willow Creek Unit; Farmers' Mutual Canal Company, Tri-State Land Company; New York Trust Co. v. Farmers' Irr. Dist. 280 F. 785 C.A.8 04/14/1922; North Platte Irrigation Project, Pathfinder Reservoir
  • U.S. v. Tilley, 124 F.2d 850 C.A.8 12/23/1941 North Platte River, Farmers' Irrigation District, North Platte irrigation Project, Pathfinder Division, Northport Division, Pathfinder Irrigation District, Northport Irrigation District, Gering-Ft. Laramie Irrigation District; State ex rel. Sorenson v. Mitchell Irr. Dist., 129 Neb. 586, 262 N.W. 543 09/20/1935, Guernsey Reservoir
  • Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945) North Platte Project, Kendrick Project, a Decree, per Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp 1
  • Nine-Mile Canyon, Goff v. Weiss 113 Neb. 599, 203 N.W. 955 05/23/1925 Farmers' Irrigation District, Minatare Drainage District, Scotts Bluff County Nebr., U.S. Reclamation Service also defendant
  • North Platte River Project 62 F.Supp 838 06/24/1999
• Owyhee River, Owyhee Reclamation Project Malheur County, Or, 225 F.2d 709 09/12/1955; In Re Owyhee River Water Rights, 124 Or. 44, 259 P. 292 09/14/1927 Jordan River/Jordan Creek
• Pecos River, Carlsbad Project, 161 N.M. 1, 150 P.3d 375 11/16/2006
  • Brantley Farms v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 1998-NMCA-023, (Carlsbad Project), 124 N.M. 698, 954 P.2d 763;
    • Tompkins v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 96 N.M. 368, 630 P.2d 767 (Ct. App. 1981)
  • U.S. v. Hope Community Ditch, Cause No. 712 (Equity) (D.N.M. 1933) HOPE DECREE
  • Undercut in State Court, Cartwright v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. 66 N.M. 64, 76, 343 P.2d 654 1958,
    • overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P. 3d 47 [check]
  • Black River, Eddy County, N.M. United States of America v. Edward F. Judkins et al., No 112 D.C. Fifth Judicial District Terr. of N.M. 01/03/1912 Decree adjudicating rights on the Black River system; JUDKINS DECREE (1912) provided for lapse of unused awarded rights; diminished by 1921 In the matter of Harkey v. Parkhurst, et al., Cause No. 3258, District Court Eddy County, 04/21/1921; Parkhurst Decree 1921, Harkey Decree 1930, Woods Decree 1967....
  • State ex rel. Office of State Engineer v. Lewis, 141 N.M. 1, 150 p.3d 375 (11/16/2006) (Roswell Artesian Basin/Hagerman Canal surface water rights) Penasco River; Settlement Agreement/Partial Final Decree
  • Pecos River Compact, Texas v. New Mexico, 485 U.S. 388 (1988)
• Rio Grande, TX - Parker v. El Paso County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 116 Tex 631, 297 SW 737 6/22/1927 & 260 S.W. 667 Elephant Butte Dam; Rio Grande Irrigation Project 163 F.Supp. 838 07/16/1958; Snow v. Abalos, 18 N.M. 681, 140 P. 1044 04/20/1914 7000 defendants, Mesilla Community Ditch, Las Cruces Community Ditch, Elephant Butte Water Users Association, U.S. v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 05/22/1899 (proposed dam at Elephant Butte, NM? [tangential, question as to the effect on the navigability of the lower Rio Grande]
  • El Paso County Water Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. City of El Paso, 133 F.Supp 894, D.C.Tex. 08/01/1955, Rio Grande Project, Tornillo Main Canal; American Dam, American Irrigation Canal, Franklin Canal, Caballo Reservoir, El Paso Irrigation Canal, El Paso Irrigation Company, American Diversion Dam
  • Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 05/11/1953 El Vado Dam & Reservoir, Elephant Butte Reservoir,
• Rogue River, Or, In Re Rogue River Adjudication, 120 Or. 237, 251 P. 898 01/04/1927; Pleasant Creek
• Salt River, AZ - Roosevelt Reclamation Project, 18 Ariz 178, 157 P. 977 Aug 1916
  • KENT DECREE, Hurler v. Abbott, 1910
• Salt Water River [?], 11 Cl.Ct. 614, 8 Cl.Ct. 684, 9 Cl.Ct. 32, 10 Cl.Ct. 120
  • River Red Project, 1987
  • Salt River Federal Reclamation Project,
• San Joaquin River, CA ? California v. United Sates, 438 U.S. 645 (1978) Rank v. Krug, 142 F.Supp. 1 D.C.Cal 02/07/1956; Rank v. Krug, 90 F.Supp. 773; US. v. U.S. District Court, etc., 9 Cir. 206 F.2d 303; California v. U.S. District Court, etc. 9 Cir. 213 F.2d 818; Rank v. U.S., D.C. 16 F.R.D. 310; Fresno v. Edmonston, D.C., 131 F.Supp. 421: Friant Dam, Mendota Pool, Millerton Lake, Crane Valley Reservoir, Shaver Lake, Huntington Lake, Thomas A. Edison Lake, Florence Lake, Madera Canal, Friant-Kern Canal, Delta-Mendota Canal; appearance abdicated by the U.S. 07/12/1954? just stopped showing up? fn 27 Report of Special Subcommittee H.R. 1952, on hearings on Central Valley Project, Oct. 29, 30, 31, 1951 (Engle Report) bad faith by USA and California on CVP? U.S v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725
  • Rank v. Krug 142 F.Supp 82; Federal Reclamation Act; adjudication comment?
  • Other cases. . . .
    • Natural Resources Defence Council, et al., v. Patterson, et al., USDC ED-Calif. Civ. S-88-1658-LKK, Orange Cove Irrigation District, Friant Dam, Friant Unit, aka NRDC v. Rodgers
    • Madera Irrigation District, Chowchilla Irrigation District v. Hancock, etc. et al., USDC ED-Calif S-92-242-LKK NRDC Intervenor
• Shoshone River, & Bitter Creek, Wyoming; Shoshone Reclamation project, Weymouth v. Lincoln Land Co., 277 F. 384 C.A.8 12/07/1921;
  • USA v. Arthur W. Ide et al., 277 F. 373 C.A.8 12/07/1921; Corbett Tunnel, Garland Canal, Ide v. U.S. 263 U.S. 497 01/07/1924
• Silvies River, Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis et al., D. Ore, 217 F. 95 *, 09/28/1914 [Morton, not Reclamation?], more than 200 users;
  • In re Water Rights in Silvies River, 115 Or. 27, 237 P. 322 06/23/1925 Tributary to Malheur Lake; 275 proofs; Trout Creek, Payne Creek, Camp Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Jump Creek, Bridge Creek, Flat Creek, Little Creek, Poison Creek, Whiting Slouth, Foley's Slough, Chapman's Slough, Cronin Dam, Rim Rock Dam, Elk Dam, Poujade Dam, Foley Dam (Hog Pen Dam), Morrell Dam, Lassell Dam; Harney Valley Dam, Ditch & Irrigation Company, Jones Dam, West Fork Slough, Black Slough, Boat Ford Slough, Boat Ford Dam, Square Well Slough, Hayes Dam; Silvies River Irrigation Company; Stenger Dam, Newman Dam Pacific Live Stock Company v. W.D. Hanley et al, U.S Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, [consent] DECREE 12/10/1901, portion of the Decree is at 237 P. 322, 354; Harney Valley Dam, Ditch & Irrigating Company; supplemental complaint filed 04/09/1908, D. Ore., appeal to Court of Appeals, Embree Slough, & a contempt proceeding; Pacific Live Stock v. Hanley, 200 F. 2d 468, C.A.911/01/1912 Foley Slough excluded, [somewhat recites consent Decree], The 21 Dam, Nine Mile Slough; Hanley v. Pacific Live Stock Co., 234 F. 522, C.A.9 07/03/1916 contempt proceeding, subsequent lands not affected by the decree, Young Dam
  • In re Silvies River (D.C.) 199 F. 495, D.C. Or 10/07/1912
  • American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Crandall, 82 F.2d 973, C.A.9 03/30/1936, appropriate 8,000 s-f of Snake River; Minidoka North Side Pumping Unit/American Falls Reservoir No. 269; Riley Canal, Little & Big Wood Rivers, Gooding project; refers to a WOODVILLE DECREE 06/25/1929, U.S.D.C. Idaho, Eastern District, Woodville Canal Company v. Clark and Edwards Canal, with EAGLE & FOSTER all waters of Snake at & upstream from Milner Dam, Reclamation Brief to IDWR 04/13/2005
  • EAGLE DECREE, Burley Irrigation District v. Henry Eagle, Watermaster, Water Dist. No. 36, State of Idaho, District Court, 5th Judicial District for the State of Idaho 07/10/1968; Aberdeen-springfield Canal Company v. Eagle, District Court 7th Judicial District for the State of Idaho 03/12/1969
  • FOSTER DECREE, Twin falls Canal Comp. v. Foster, District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, 06/20/1913; Minidoka Dam ; (Angle Tx p. 3109, 3111 S.T. Harding "Minnidoca Project in Idaho")
  • REXBURG DECREE, Snake River above Blackfoot
  • Minidoka Project 02/10/1922 279 F. 168
  • Palisades Reservoir, Island Park Dam, brief IDWR
  • Jackson Lake, Northside Canal Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 8 F.2d 739, D.C.Wyo. 09/26/1925; Lincoln County, then Teton county North Side Canal Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Wyoming, 17 F.2d 55, C.A.8 12/20/1926 Jackson Lake Dam & Jackson Lake Reservoir So. Fork Snake River USA raised dam for Kuhn Irrigation & Canal Company, Twin Falls Canal Company, 300 miles further down another Dam near Minidoka, ID, for Minidoka Project
  • Warm Springs Creek, tributary to Snake River, Reynolds Irr. Dist. v. Sproat, 70 Id. 217, 214 P.2d 880, Boise Kuna Irrigation District from Boise River, drain to Warm Springs Creek
  • Malheur River, 140 Or. 288, 12 P.2d 560 06/28/1932 Malheur & Harney Counties, Nevada Ditch Company thence Warmsprings Irrigation District, Vale Project ; 1912 Nevada Ditch filed to adjudicate watershed, 05/13/1925 findings to circuit court Nevada Ditch Co. v. Bennett, 30 Or. 59, 45 P. 472 06/29/1896 Malheur to Snake River; Malheur Farmers' Irrigation Ditch Company, Sand Hollow Ditch Company, Gillerman-Froman Ditch Company, Warm Spring Valley Ditch
• South Platte Project
• Trinity River, CA ?
• Trout Creek, Rock Creek, Wyman Creek, Pool Creek, Rock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. Miller, 93 Mont. 248, 17 P.2d 1074 01/05/1933
• Umatilla River
  • Maxwell land & Irrigation Co. v. Hermison Bank & Trust Co., 70 Or. 218, 139 P. 921, Umatilla 03/31/1914
  • In Re Waters of Umatilla River, 88 Or. 376, 172 P. 97 * 04/16/1918 Hermiston Project
  • In Re Waters of Umatilla River, S.Ct. Oregon, 168 P. 922 * 11/27/1917 [both Morton - & Angle tr. p.31 & 3243-46, begun by Reclamation 1910 before State Water Commission of Oregon, thence to Oregon Supreme Court, 600 parties, 293 appeared, the Umatilla Project of the United States Reclamation Service, Angle Tx 3245 Morton represented DOJ, 1910-1917]
• Uncompahgre & Gunnison Rivers, Colorado, U.S. v. Van Horn 197 F. 611, D.C. Colo 06/12/1912
• Yellowstone River, MT - 53 Ct. Cl. 582, 06/10/1918

- - - Also of interest:

• California Power Co. v. Beaver Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142
• Carey Act? Act 08/18/1894, 28 Stat. 422 Sec. 4, 43 USCA 641 (in 1930?)
• Warren Act 02/21/1911 36 Stat 925, 43 USCA 523-525; not vested if under Warren Act ?
• Reclamation Extension Act 08/13/1914 38 Stat 686
• Reclamation Service under USGS under Interior 1906

* = have
- - -
It is appropriate that someone in Congress or at Reclamation review every Reclamation adjudication to make sure that no pioneer family was unfairly cheated out of their water (and we already know we were), and to restore their water if they were.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
mjbarkl@inreach.com