Supreme Court rules against California farmers in water use case
JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press
FRESNO, Calif. - Individual farmers may not sue the federal government to enforce water contracts entered into by their irrigation districts, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a decision that limits landowners' ability to seek compensation for reduced flows.
Justices concluded that the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act "does not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court Thursday.
Two dozen farmers from California's Central Valley wanted the federal government to pay them about $32 million as compensation for water they were supposed to get under a federal contract. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation diverted the water to comply with Endangered Species Act requirements to protect two threatened fish.
Re: Endangered River
Date Edited: 24 Jun 2005 10:17:45 AM
Posted on Fri, Jun. 24, 2005
Supreme Court rules against California farmers in water use case
JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press
FRESNO, Calif. - Individual farmers may not sue the federal government to enforce water contracts entered into by their irrigation districts, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a decision that limits landowners' ability to seek compensation for reduced flows.
Justices concluded that the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act "does not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court Thursday.
Two dozen farmers from California's Central Valley wanted the federal government to pay them about $32 million as compensation for water they were supposed to get under a federal contract. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation diverted the water to comply with Endangered Species Act requirements to protect two threatened fish.
READ THE FULL STORY IN SC-IMC'S 'OTHERPRESS' NEWSWIRE
santacruz.indymedia.org/otherpress/display/560
New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz