City of Fresno, California, et al. v. United States, et al.

To comply with Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, state water law must provide that “the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of [the] Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.” 43 U.S.C. § 372. This “beneficial ownership of water rights in [Reclamation Act] water projects,” Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 123 (1983), means that “the water rights [are] the property of the landowners,” Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S. 82, 95 (1937), and “the Government’s ‘ownership’ of the water rights [is] at most nominal.” Nevada, 463 U.S. at 126. During the 2014 drought in California’s Central Valley—one of the most important agricultural areas in the United States—15,000 farms suffered devastating economic losses because the Bureau of Reclamation provided none of the Reclamation Project water that was available for their use. Petitioners, on behalf of the affected growers or themselves, filed, inter alia, a Fifth Amendment takings claim, which the Federal Circuit rejected on the theory that the growers (i.e., landowners) possess no water-property rights in the water that Reclamation withheld. The questions presented are: 1. Whether in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 372, the beneficial users of Reclamation Project irrigation water have compensable water-property rights under the Fifth Amendment.