In Re: Equity 30 v.

Filing 363

ORDER granting 353 Motion to Amend signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/23/16. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:80-CV-00583-TLN
[In Equity No. 30]

v.
ORDER
H.C. ANGLE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiff, the United States of

18

America, on behalf of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, to amend the decree (“the

19

Decree” or “the Angle Decree”) entered in the above-captioned case by the Hon. Frank H.

20

Kerrigan of this Court on January 13, 1930. (Pl.’s Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 353.) Defendant

21

Michael J. Barkley opposes Plaintiff’s motion. (Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 356.) The Court is duly

22

advised of the parties’ arguments, and after careful consideration of the complete record before

23

the Court in this matter, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Decree.

24

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25

A. History of the Angle Decree

26

Following the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. § 391 et seq.,1 the United States began

27
1

28

The Reclamation Act of 1902 “empowers the federal government to acquire water rights for the reclamation and
irrigation of land.” Wackerman Dairy, Inc. v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1993).

1

1

a water rights adjudication proceeding to settle existing water rights claims to the surface flows of

2

Stony Creek and its tributaries in northern California. See Wackerman Dairy, Inc. v. Wilson, 7

3

F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1993). These water rights were adjudicated and set forth in the Angle

4

Decree in 1930. U.S. v. H.C. Angle, et al., No. 30, In Equity. Under the Decree, Plaintiff owns

5

specific rights to water used in operating the Orland Project, a federal reclamation project

6

designed to promote the irrigation of agricultural lands for the beneficial use of water. (Mem. of

7

P. & A. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 353-1 at 1.) The place of use of these water rights

8

is regulated in the Decree under the Orland Project Land Schedule. Id. There is a Court-

9

established process for parties to follow for annexations and changes in place of use of water

10

rights under the Angle Decree.2 (Order filed February 11, 2009, “February 2009 Order,” ECF

11

No. 295.) The Court has approved amendments to the Decree regarding changes in place of use

12

of water rights and the Orland Project Land Schedule in the past. (ECF No. 295; Order filed

13

February 24, 2014, ECF No. 343.)

14

B. Proposed Modifications

15

Plaintiff seeks to modify the place of use of water rights on certain lands described in the

16

Decree to “conform to current irrigation practices, through the annexation of six specified

17

properties, broken down by parcel, into the lands of the Orland Project.” (ECF No. 353-1 at 1.)

18

The proposed modifications would increase the total gross acreage of the lands included in the

19

Orland Project Land Schedule from approximately 22,818 acres to approximately 23,385 acres.

20

(Id. at 10.) These modifications have the support of the Court-appointed Water Master

21

designated to oversee the Decree and the Orland Unit Water Users’ Association (OUWUA).

22

(Decl. of Pendell, ECF No. 353-2; OUWUA Joinder, ECF No. 357.)

23

C. Defendant’s Allegations

24

Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 356.)

25
2

26
27
28

Parties wishing to make amendments to the Decree must comply with certain procedures before the Court will
consider a motion to amend. (ECF No. 295 at 15.) These procedures include, but are not limited to, submitting a
written request to the OUWUA, obtaining approval by the OUWUA and the Water Master, as well as providing
notice and opportunity for objections regarding the proposed changes, and filing the motion or proposed order with
the Court. (See id. at 15–17.)

2

1

Defendant makes overarching arguments against the validity of the entire Angle Decree, yet does

2

not raise any specific concerns about the proposals presented in Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

3

(See ECF No. 356; Decl. of Barkley, ECF No. 356-1.) Rather, Defendant asks that consideration

4

of the Motion to Amend “be postponed indefinitely” until Plaintiff and the United States

5

Department of Justice perform certain acts.3 (ECF No. 356 at 2.)

6

II.

7

The 1930 Angle Decree provides the applicable standard of review to determine whether

8

the Decree should be amended with regard to the elements of the water rights determined by the

9

Court, including changes in the place of use of the water. The Decree states that:

10

STANDARDS OF LAW

[A]ny of the parties to whom the rights to water have been decreed
herein shall be entitled, in accordance with applicable laws and
legal principles, to change the point of diversion and the places,
means, manner or purpose of the use of the water to which they are
so entitled or for any part thereof, so far as they may do so without
injury to the rights of the other parties as the same are defined
herein.

11
12
13
14

(Decl. of Colella, Ex. 1, at 175, ECF No. 278.) Accordingly, as long as a party with decreed

15

water rights can demonstrate that the proposed change is in accordance with applicable laws, then

16

the only consideration for the Court is whether the change can be accomplished “without injury to

17

the rights of other parties” as defined in the Decree. Absent proof of injury, a party is entitled to

18

change the place of use for its water rights.

19

III.

20

A. Defendant’s Opposition is Non-Responsive

21

As previously stated, Defendant’s Opposition fails to include the grounds upon which he

22

opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (See ECF No. 356; ECF No. 356-1.) Defendant does not

23

assert or offer proof that the proposed modifications violate applicable laws and legal principles

24

or that the modifications will injure his rights as a decreed water rights holder. (See ECF No.

25

356; ECF No. 356-1.) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s Opposition is non-responsive

26

to the issues raised in the Motion to Amend, and thus the Court rejects Defendant’s arguments.

27

3

28

ANALYSIS

Defendant makes numerous other claims and requests in his Opposition and Declaration. (See ECF No. 356; Decl.
of Barkley, ECF No. 356-1.) However, the Court declines to address these points as they are not relevant to the
specific issue presented to the Court by the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

3

1

B. Plaintiff’s Motion

2

Plaintiff requests this Court amend the Angle Decree by approving the proposed changes

3

in the place of use for the decreed water rights and the annexation of six properties into the

4

Orland Project. (ECF No. 353; ECF No. 353-1; Pl.’s Reply in Supp., ECF No. 358.)

5

i.

6

Proposed Modifications are in Accordance with Applicable Law

Under the Angle Decree, Plaintiff has the total water right of 85,050 acre-feet (af) of

7

natural flow during the irrigation season and the right to reclaim and irrigate up to 21,000 acres of

8

the gross lands of the Orland Project described in the Orland Project Land Schedule. (See ECF

9

No. 295 at 15.) The annexation of the proposed six properties would increase the total gross

10

acreage of the lands included in the Orland Project Land Schedule from approximately 22,818

11

acres to approximately 23,385 acres. (ECF No. 353-1 at 10.) However, the number of acres

12

actually irrigated per given year will remain approximately 20,597 acres per the limitation

13

imposed by Plaintiff’s existing Final Water Right Certificates.4 (Id. at 11.) As such, there would

14

be no increase in the acreage receiving water for irrigation per year. Further, the proposed change

15

in the place of use of the water rights will not result in an increase in the quantity of water put to

16

beneficial use under the Angle Decree. (Id. at 12.) Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed

17

modifications are in compliance with the limits set forth in the Angle Decree.

18

ii.

No Injury to the Rights of Other Parties

Pursuant to the February 2009 Order, Plaintiff’s proposed modifications underwent review

19
20

by OUWUA and the Court-appointed Water Master. (ECF No. 358 at 1.) The Water Master

21

found that the annexations of the six properties would not injure the rights of any other water

22

right holder under the Decree. (ECF No. 353-2 at 2.) The manager of the OUWUA agrees with

23

the Water Master’s evaluation. (Decl. of Massa, ECF No. 357-1.) Given these assessments along

24

with the finding that there will not be an increase in irrigated lands nor an increase in the quantity

25

of water used as a part of the Orland Project, the Court finds that the proposed amendments will

26
4

27
28

In order to receive Orland Project water, a landowner must obtain a Final Water Right Certificate showing the
landowner has repaid a proportionate share of the Orland Project’s construction cost. (ECF No. 353-1 at 11.) This
certificate specifies the number of irrigable acres covered by the certificate and limits the water right to the amount of
water that can be put to the authorized beneficial use of irrigation on those acres. (Id. at 6.)

4

1

not injure the rights of other parties under the Angle Decree. Therefore, the Court finds that good

2

cause exists to GRANT Plaintiff’s motion.

3

IV.

4

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEARBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to

5

CONCLUSION

Amend is GRANTED. (ECF No. 353.)

6

The Project Land Schedule of the Angle Decree is AMENDED to annex the following

7

lands into the Orland Project:

8

NAME

SN

9

Blair

860

ACRES

LOCATION

14.6

NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 23-T22N R3W

1.6

NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 23-T22N R3W

7.27

NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 T22N R4W

12

4.92

NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 T22N R4W

13

40.18

SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 T22N R4W

14

18.16

SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 T22N R4W

40.06

SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 25 T22N R4W

16

40.11

NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec 25 T22N R4W

17

39.98

NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

18

39.96

SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

19

40.29

NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

20

40.28

SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

21

40.25

NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

22

40.23

SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 26 T22N R4W

7.02

NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 T22N R4W

37.12

SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 T22N R4W

0.25

NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 T21N R3W

26

3.92

NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 T21N R3W

27

5.06

NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 T21N R3W

28

35.26

NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 5 T21N R3W

TOTAL ACRES

10
11

15

23

Lowe

Orland Ranch LLC

Laurel Creek LLC

862

863

864

24
25

Fodge

865

5

16.2

70.53

321.16

44.14

1
2

10.29

11

NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W
NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 T23N R4W

1.23

10

SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W

6.70

9

SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W

7.39

8

SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W

5.33

7

NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W

1.79

6

NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 33 T23 R4W

1.51

5

SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 33 T23N R4W

1.99

4

SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 32 T23N R4W

26.39

866

4.38
3.32

Old Colony Ranch

3

SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 5 T21N R3W

NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 T23N R4W

54.78

60.03

12
13

The number of acres within the Orland Project to which Orland Project water may be

14

delivered in any given irrigation season, including newly annexed lands, will remain capped at

15

21,000 acres, as prescribed in the Angle Decree.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 23, 2016

19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6