Yellen Versus Imperial Irrigation District Collection
Mandeville Special Collections Library
Mandeville Special Collections Library
The UCSD Libraries
9500 Gilman Drive
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0175
Phone: (858) 534-2533
Fax: (858) 534-5950
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Yellen, Ben, 1907-1994
Title: Yellen Versus Imperial Irrigation District Collection,
Date (inclusive): 1970 - 1972
0.40 linear feet
(1 archives box)
Abstract: The files contain the official transcripts of two federal trials regarding water use in the Imperial Valley and the non-enforcement
of two provisions of the original Reclamation Act of 1902. The provisions concerned a 160-acre land size limitation and a
residency provision. The provisions required those seeking federal water benefits to sell off land in excess of 160 acres
and to be residents on or near the land they wished to irrigate. The first trial concerned the 160-acre limitation and was
titled, "United States vs. Imperial Irrigation District," (December 1-3, 1970) and would eventually reach the United States
Supreme Court. The second trial concerned the residency requirement and was titled, "Yellen vs. Secretary of Interior," (April
25-26, 1972). Included within the transcripts are the testimony of landowners, government officials, economists, and land
and water use experts. Additionally, the transcripts contain legal arguments regarding the admission of evidence, intervention
into the case by the landowners, and other legal issues.
University of California, San Diego. Geisel Library. Mandeville Special Collections Library.
La Jolla, California 92093-0175
Collection number: MSS 0677
Language of Material:
Collection materials in English
Collection is open for research.
Yellen Versus Imperial Irrigation District Collection, MSS 0677. Mandeville Special Collections Library, UCSD.
Publication rights are held by the creator of the collection.
The Reclamation Act of 1902 authorized the United States government to create water projects to help open arid lands to small
farmers. The original act included provisions to ensure wide distribution of the benefits of federal projects and to prevent
land speculation and monopolies. These provisions are at the center of contention in the two trials contained in this collection.
Section 5 of the Reclamation Act provided that no right to the use of water for land in private ownership should be sold for
a tract exceeding 160 acres to any one landowner. Section 5 also required that recipients of federal water benefits live
on or near the land that was irrigated.
The Imperial Valley is an area located in southeastern California and lies below sea level. It is an arid desert in its natural
state but irrigation began in the Valley long before the federal water projects. Since 1901, a privately-funded delivery
and distribution system had harnessed Colorado River water for irrigation via the Alamo Canal. This canal ran for over sixty
miles through Mexico before re-entering the United States to irrigate the Imperial Valley, and continued in existence until
1940, well after the building of the All American Canal. Therefore, the Imperial Valley landowners argued that they were
exempt from the 160-acre and residency requirements because they possessed pre-existing rights to the Colorado River water.
When the seven states of the Colorado River Basin executed the 1922 Colorado River Compact they included Article VIII stating,
"[p]resent perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System are unimpaired by this compact."
Further, when the Boulder Canyon Project Act became effective in 1929, (authorizing funding for the Hoover and Imperial Dams,
as well as the All American Canal) it required the Secretary of the Interior to observe rights to Colorado River water that
had been perfected under state law at the time the law became effective. By 1929, the Imperial Valley was already irrigating
424,145 acres of land without any restrictions as to size or residency.
Dr. Ben Yellen, a long-time social justice activist in the Imperial Valley, brought the initial suit against the Imperial
Irrigation District (IID) in federal district court to enforce the 160-acre limitation. He and former farmworker-residents
of the Imperial Valley argued that the non-enforcement of the limitation denied these farmers of modest income an opportunity
to buy land. The United States Supreme Court later upheld the farmers right to bring this cause of action even though the
farmers could not, with certainty, establish that they would be able to purchase land even if the 160-acre limitation were
upheld. Dr. Yellen also instituted a lawsuit against the IID for enforcement of the residency requirement.
In 1964, the Department of the Interior, under which the Bureau of Reclamation functions, reversed decades of administrative
practice, and agreed that non-enforcement of the 160-acre limitation in the Imperial Valley was inconsistent with reclamation
law principles. When the Interior Department attempted to enforce the provision, the IID sought and won an injunction to
stop enforcement. The United States then brought suit against the IID and the partial official transcript of that action
is contained in the files of this collection.
The subsequent history of the cases is not contained within this collection. The "United States vs. Imperial Irrigation District"
case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that the 160-acre provision should be enforced against
the IID landowners. The victory for Dr. Yellen and the small farmers of the Imperial Valley was short-lived.
In 1980, the case, consolidated with Yellen's earlier lawsuit and a State of California lawsuit, was conclusively settled
by the United States Supreme Court when it reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. Justice Byron R. White,
writing for a unanimous Court, in the case now titled, "Bryant v. Yellen," held that Imperial Valley landowners as of 1929
(the year the Boulder River Canyon Project Act became effective), had "present perfected rights" (now in trust with the IID)
that could be exercised without regard to the land limitation provisions.
By analogy, this rationale seems to support the non-enforcement of the residency requirement at issue in "Yellen vs. Secretary
of Interior," but the Supreme Court did not address that issue, and the ultimate outcome of that case is not within the collections
Scope and Content of Collection
The Yellen Versus Imperial Irrigation District Collection documents two trials held in the federal district court of Southern
California regarding water use in the Imperial Valley of California. The files contain photocopies of official court transcripts
generated for purposes of appealing the decisions reached at the trial court level. The files are arranged in two series:
1) UNITED STATES VS. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, and 2) YELLEN VS. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.
SERIES 1: UNITED STATES VS. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
The first trial's testimony of witnesses took place on December 1-3, 1970. The trial concerned the non-enforcement of a 160-acre
land limitation in order to be eligible to receive water for irrigation from the Boulder River Canyon Project. Witnesses
included former and current employees of the Bureau of Reclamation, notably including Edward Weinberg, former solicitor of
the Department of the Interior; Robert F. Carter, general manager of the Imperial Irrigation District (IDD); numerous Imperial
Valley landowners who owned more than 160 acres of land; and, expert witnesses regarding the economic benefits generated by
the federal water project.
The partial official transcripts are arranged chronologically in three parts. The third part ends with Judge Turrentine discussing
the schedule for the lawyers' closing arguments but those transcripts are not included in the collection.
SERIES 2: YELLEN VS. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
The second trial (April 25-26, 1972) dealt with the non-enforcement of the residency requirement in the Imperial Valley.
The series contains four files. Parts 1-3 contain the official pre-trial and trial transcripts. The fourth file is a supplemental
transcript of the sworn deposition of an Imperial Valley non-resident landowner.
Included in the files is a pre-trial transcript of the successful argument made by the Imperial Valley landowners regarding
why they should be allowed to intervene in the case; witness testimony including a government loan administrator describing
loan programs for small farmers; current and former Bureau of Reclamation employees regarding Bureau policies; an agricultural
economist regarding the effect of enforcement of the residency requirement; and, long-time Imperial Valley landowners who
were no longer residents but whose land was still receiving water from the Project.
The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the library's online public access catalog.
Water transfer -- California, Southern
Water-supply -- California, Southern
Irrigation water -- California, Southern
Water resources development -- California, Southern -- Finance
Irrigation laws -- California
Irrigation laws -- Economic aspects -- California
Imperial Irrigation District (Calif.)
Imperial Valley (Calif. and Mexico -- Water rights
Yellen, Ben, 1907-1994
UNITED STATES VS. IMPERIAL IRRIGRATION DISTRICT
box 1, folder 1
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 1, December 1, 1970
Contains testimony including an extensive description of evidence admitted as exhibits, as well as objections to that evidence.
Witnesses included: 1) Arleigh B. West, a long-time Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) employee and then assistant to the Commissioner,
and 2) Edward Weinberg, attorney and twenty-five year veteran of the Bureau, who rose to become solicitor of the Department
of Interior until his resignation in 1969. Both men discussed reclamation law and the history of the Bureau's administrative
practice in regard to the land limitiation issue as applied in the Imperial Valley.
box 1, folder 2
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 2, December 2, 1970
Contains the cross-examination of former Solicitor Weinberg. New witnesses included: 1) Assistant Commissioner Gilbert G.
Stamm, a twenty-four year employee of the Bureau, 2) Theordore Bender Shank, an Imperial Valley farmer since 1904 who owned
900 acres and testified he was unaware of any size limitation, and 3) Robert F. Carter, general manager of the Imperial Irrigation
box 1, folder 3
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 3, December 3, 1970
Contains additional direct and cross-examination of Mr. Carter of the Imperial Irrigation District and a short re-cross-examination
of Edward Weinberg. A series of Imperial Valley landowners, all of whom owned more than 160 acres of land, then testified
including: Robert C. Brown, Stephen Henry Elmore, John Kubler, Jr., Charles E. Nilson, Clara Marie Gutierrez, Harold Anderson
Brockman, and John M. Bryant. Plaintiffs presented two rebuttal witnesses: 1) John R. Riter, a retired Bureau engineer, who
testified to the various benefits landowners derived from the federal projects, and 2) Edmund Barbour, economist and twenty-year
veteran Bureau employee, who also testified about the economic benefits of the project.
YELLEN VS. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
box 1, folder 4
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 1, March 20, 1972
Contains the official transcript of a pre-trial proceeding in which the Imperial Valley landowners successfully sought to
intervene in the case so their viewpoint would be represented. Also includes Government arguments to postpone the proceedings
pending appeal of the 160-acre case then before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a request that Judge Murray reconsider
an earlier partial summary judgment decision he had made.
box 1, folder 5
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 2, April 25-26, 1972
Contains the beginning of trial testimony including six witnesses: 1) Ted B. Talbert, county supervisor of the Farmers Home
Administration of Imperial and San Diego counties, who discussed the various federal loan programs available to small farmers,
2) Maurice N. Langley, chief of the Division of Water and Land in the Bureau's Commissioner's Office, and 3) Frank Barry,
former solicitor with the Department of Interior, and three Imperial Valley farmer-landowners who were non-residents and who
would be affected by the court's decision. These included William L. Jacobs, Donald Cox, and Frank Hertzberg.
box 1, folder 6
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings For Purposes of Appeal, Part 3, April 26, 1972
Contains the testimony of two witnesses: 1) Robert F. Carter, general manager of the Imperial Irrigation District, and 2)
William W. Wood, an agricultural economist with expertise in land use, markets and planning, who testified that enforcement
of the residency requirement in the Imperial Valley would lower the price of land as well as the tax base.
box 1, folder 7
Deposition of William E. Young, Sr
Supplemental file containing the sworn deposition of a long-time Imperial Valley farmer and landowner who was no longer a
resident but whose land was still receiving federal water benefits.