By Nancie G. Marzulla and George Grenzer
In early September 2025, a coalition of California cities, irrigation districts, and family farmers—represented in part by Marzulla Law—filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the Court to review one of the most significant water rights disputes in decades: whether the growers of the California Central Valley hold compensable property rights in the water supplied by federal reclamation projects. At stake is not only the livelihood of thousands of farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, but also the Constitutional promise that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.
This case, City of Fresno, et al. v. United States, et al., arises out of the devastating drought of 2014, when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation withheld available water from the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. The Friant contractors—irrigation districts and municipal suppliers along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley—received a “zero allocation” that year. Meanwhile, Reclamation released the stored water to other districts under what are known as “exchange contracts.” For the more than 15,000 farms that depend on Friant water, the result was catastrophic: crops dried up, orchards died, and economic losses rippled through communities already under stress.
The Federal Circuit Holding
The growers, districts, and the City of Fresno pursued claims in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging both breach of contract and unconstitutional takings. While the trial court permitted the contract claims to proceed, it dismissed the takings claims on the ground that the farmers lacked a recognized property interest in Reclamation water. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that under California law, it is the United States—not the landowners—that holds the appropriative rights to Central Valley Project water. The court reasoned that because the growers had no property interest in deliveries from Reclamation, they could not claim compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
In its opinion, the Federal Circuit downplayed Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which expressly provides that “the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.” Despite a century of Supreme Court decisions affirming this principle, the panel concluded that “California law does not assign property rights in water based on the uses put to it by end users.” In effect, the court treated Reclamation as the sole owner of Central Valley Project water rights, with landowners reduced to mere customers subject to federal discretion.
Conflicts With Supreme Court Precedent
The petition for certiorari points out that the ruling of the Federal Circuit cannot be squared with longstanding Supreme Court precedent. In Ickes v. Fox (1937), the Court rejected the government contention that ownership of project water belonged to the United States. The Court held that “appropriation was made not for the use of the government, but, under the Reclamation Act, for the use of the landowners” and that “the water rights became the property of the landowners, wholly distinct from the property right of the government in the irrigation works.”
Similarly, in Nebraska v. Wyoming (1945), the Court recognized that a water right under the Reclamation Act “is appurtenant to the land, the owner of which is the appropriator.” In Nevada v. United States (1983), the Court went further, emphasizing that the governmental ownership of reclamation project water rights is “at most nominal,” while the “beneficial interest” resides in the landowners themselves.
The Fresno petition highlights this sharp conflict. By effectively nullifying Section 8 and disregarding these precedents, the Federal Circuit has created a direct and irreconcilable split. If allowed to stand, the decision would strip farmers of Constitutional protections whenever Reclamation reallocates or withholds irrigation water, no matter how much growers have invested in their land, crops, and infrastructure.
The 2014 Drought and Its Consequences
The facts of this case underscore the stakes. The Central Valley of California is among the most productive agricultural regions in the world, supplying over 40% of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Yet, the valley receives little rainfall and depends on imported surface water for survival. The Central Valley Project (CVP), built beginning in the 1930s, was designed to capture, store, and distribute water to make agriculture possible at a vast scale. Within the CVP, the Friant Division alone serves more than 15,000 farms on one million acres, as well as several cities, including Fresno.
In 2014, despite the severe drought, there was still water available in Millerton Lake behind Friant Dam. But for the first time in the history of the project, Reclamation delivered none of it to Friant contractors. Instead, it diverted the water to satisfy obligations under “exchange contracts” with other districts. The growers left without water lost billions in crop value and faced permanent damage to fields and orchards that had taken decades to establish.
The petitioners argue that this decision was more than a matter of allocation policy. It was a governmental taking of vested property rights. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act guarantees that water rights acquired under the Act are attached to the land and belong to the landowners who put the water to beneficial use. By withholding water despite its availability, Reclamation deprived growers of those rights without paying just compensation, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Questions Before the Court
The petition presents two straightforward questions for the Supreme Court:
- Whether, under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, the beneficial users of Reclamation Project irrigation water hold compensable property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether the refusal of Reclamation to release available water to Friant Division growers in 2014 constituted a taking of those property rights requiring just compensation.
These questions cut to the core of the balance between federal control and private rights in the West. They also provide the Court with an opportunity to reaffirm the Constitutional protections that have long applied to water rights, even in federally managed projects.
Broader Implications
The implications of this case extend far beyond the San Joaquin Valley. Reclamation projects span 17 Western states, providing irrigation water to one in five Western farmers and supporting 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60% of the nation’s vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts. In each of these projects, water allocation decisions made in Washington, DC or regional Reclamation offices can determine whether communities thrive or collapse.
If the Federal Circuit ruling stands, farmers across the West could find themselves with no property rights in the very water on which their livelihoods depend. Reclamation could reallocate water for competing purposes—whether environmental programs, urban growth, or contractual obligations—without ever compensating the growers whose lands and investments were left out to dry. Such a regime would undermine the stability of property rights in the West, leaving agriculture perpetually at the mercy of shifting federal priorities.
Conversely, if the Supreme Court grants review and affirms the principles set out in Ickes, Nebraska, and Nevada, it would reaffirm that water rights are not second-class property rights. When the government takes water for public use, just as when it takes land or minerals, the Constitution requires payment of just compensation. Such a ruling would provide clarity and security for farmers, ranchers, and communities across the Reclamation states.
An Ideal Vehicle for Review
As the petition notes, this case is an ideal vehicle for resolving these issues. The facts are clear and undisputed: water was available in 2014, Reclamation chose to allocate none of it to the Friant Division, and growers suffered devastating losses as a result. The legal questions are equally sharp, centering on the interpretation of Section 8 and the application of the Fifth Amendment. There are no jurisdictional obstacles or unresolved factual disputes that might complicate the review of the Court.
Moreover, the case presents an opportunity for the Court to revisit Section 8 for the first time in decades. Since Nevada v. United States in 1983, federal water policy has only grown more complex, with environmental regulations, endangered species protections, and interstate water compacts creating new pressures on scarce resources. Yet, the core principle of Section 8 remains the same: water rights belong to the landowners who put them to beneficial use. This case gives the Court a chance to reaffirm that principle in modern circumstances.
Conclusion: Property Rights and the Constitution
At Marzulla Law, we believe this case revolves around the core protections of the Fifth Amendment. Property rights—whether in land, minerals, or water—are not subject to government whim. They are protected by the Constitution, which guarantees that when private property is taken for public use, just compensation must be paid.
The farmers of the San Joaquin Valley, like those across the West, have built their livelihoods on the promise that the water delivered by Reclamation is not a revocable privilege, but a vested right attached to their land. By asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, we are seeking to ensure that this promise is honored, and that Constitutional protections extend fully to the water rights that sustain numerous facets of American life.
The outcome of this case will determine not only the fate of thousands of Central Valley farmers, but also the security of water rights throughout the Western United States. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to restore clarity and fairness by reaffirming what has always been true: when water rights are taken, the Constitution demands just compensation.
