Ickes v. Fox

Background

The dispute involves landowners in the Sunnyside Unit of the Yakima Project and the Secretary of the Interior. The United States built an irrigation system and, under a contract and federal and Washington law, water rights were made appurtenant to the land. For more than twenty years officials decided that 4.84 acre-feet of water per acre was necessary and that amount was delivered to the land. In 1930 the Commissioner charged $1,000,000 of the Cle Elum Reservoir cost to the Sunnyside Unit, and later the Secretary issued notices limiting water to three acre-feet per acre and requiring rental applications. The landowners sued to vacate those notices and to enjoin enforcement.

Reasoning

The core legal question was whether the United States must be joined as an indispensable defendant. The Court concluded it need not. It found the landowners’ water rights were vested and appurtenant to their land under the Reclamation Act and Washington law, and that the United States did not become owner of the water rights. The government acted as carrier and distributor and held only a lien to secure repayment of construction and operation charges. Because the suits challenge wrongful official orders that would deprive owners of vested property rights, they are not suits against the United States and may proceed.

Real world impact

The decision allows irrigators in reclamation projects to sue federal officials to block orders that would cut their established water supplies. It confirms that officers can be enjoined when their actions unlawfully interfere with property rights that are vested and appurtenant to land, even though the government retains a lien to secure repayment.