Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water District’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 814 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2011
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 390A · 43 U.S.C. § 390C · 43 U.S.C. § 390E · 43 U.S.C. § 423E · 43 U.S.C. § 431 · 43 U.S.C. § 461 · 43 U.S.C. § 485H
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. Swift & Co. · Johnson v. Robison · United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Generally The provisions of this subchapter shall be applicable to any district which— (1) enters into a contract with the Secretary subsequent to October 12, 1982; (2) enters into any amendment of its contract with the Secretary subsequent to Octo ber 12, 1982, which enables the district to receive supplemental or additional benefits; or (3) which amends its contract for the purpose of conforming to the provisions of this subchapter. (b) Amendment of existing contracts Any district which has an existing contract with the Secretary as of October 12, 1982, which does not enter into an amendment of such contract as specified in subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to Federal reclamation law in effect immediately prior to October 12, 1982, as that law is amended or supplemented by sections 209 through 230 of this title [43 U.S.C.A. §§ 390ii to 390zz-l, 373a, 422e, 425b, 485h], Within a district that does not enter into an amendment of its contract with the Secretary within four and one-half years of October 12, 1982, irrigation water may be delivered to lands leased in excess of a landholding of one hundred and sixty acres only if full cost, as defined in section 390bb(3)(A) of this title, is paid for such water as is assignable to those lands leased in excess of such landholding of one hundred and sixty acres: Provided, That the interest rate used in computing full cost under this subsection shall be the same as provided in section 390ee(a)(3) of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1)Article 13, when properly construed, perhaps at most implicitly provides for the converse relationship between extended ownership and extended water rights. If a landowner were actually to suffer from a cut off of water through no fault of his own, it is arguable that he would be entitled to hold onto his lands for a long enough time to receive the benefit that Article 13 seems intended to confer, id. at 823-34; (2) We have found no provision in either the District Contract or the recordable contracts that provides that the right to receive water on excess lands for more than ten years follows from the right to own them for more than ten years, id. at 824; (3) Although we hold that the District contract and the [water-users'Jrecordable contracts did not give them any contractual right to receive more than ten years of subsidized water ...., id. at 825; and (4) In sum, since we find that the appellants never had a contractual right to re ceive more than ten years of water for their excess lands, Congress, in enacting § 224(h), did not deprive them of a property right within the meaning of the fifth amendment, id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Article 4.1 provides that “the District and the United States shall perform the 1963 Contract;” (2) Article 4.2 provides that any water delivered to the former Westplains area (referred to as Areas 2A and 2B) is governed by Articles 4.4 and 4.5 below; (3) Article 4.4 specifies: “The agricultural water service component of the rates to be paid to the United States for water delivered under Article 3 of the 1963 Contract to lands which become subject to the Discretionary Provisions of the 1982 Act 22 shall be the higher of (a) $7.50 per acre foot or (b) the appropriate rate as of the date of delivery established pursuant to the 1982 Act [full-cost];” (4) Article 4.5 provides that water for Municipal and Industrial Uses “shall be paid for ... at the applicable Central Valley Project water rate as of the date of delivery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.