Introduction
Who decides who gets to use water in the American West—the federal regulators who manage infrastructure, or the state-law water users who put it to beneficial use?
That question lies at the center of City of Fresno v. United States, a case that assesses the limits of federal power over Western water rights.
Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and reaffirm a principle Congress settled long ago: federal regulators do not have authority to pick “winners and losers” in Western water disputes.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Background
For more than a century, Western water law has followed a simple rule: water rights belong to those who put the water to beneficial use, not to the federal government that helped build the delivery systems. And to avoid the predictable instinct of federal regulators to flex their “sovereign muscles” as kings in the West, Congress passed laws specifically restraining the regulators and reinforcing the simple rule.
Congress spoke in two key statutes:
- The Reclamation Act of 1902, which made clear that water developed through federal projects would remain subject to state law and to the rights of those who use it; and
- The McCarran Amendment of 1952, which ensured that the United States would be bound by the same state-law rules as every other water user.
Together, these statutes reflect Congress’s intent to prevent federal agencies from using their administrative discretion to control or reallocate water rights once they have vested under state law.
What Happened?
During California’s 2014 drought, federal regulators took it upon themselves to reallocate water away from local users and municipalities without compensation. When the City of Fresno and local growers sued, the Federal Circuit upheld the regulators’ actions, reasoning that the water supply existed only “through the efforts of Reclamation.” In effect, the court treated the federal government as the owner of the water rather than its carrier and distributor. And it deferred to the regulators’ discretion to pick “winners and losers” even though Congress had specifically taken away that discretion.
That reasoning, if left to stand, would grant federal agencies sweeping discretion over who receives water and who does not—contrary to the limits Congress imposed.
What MSLF Argued
Mountain States Legal Foundation filed its brief not to take sides between competing users, but to emphasize that Congress expressly removed the federal government’s discretion to choose “winners and losers” in Western water disputes.
MSLF’s brief explains that:
- Federal regulators must act within the limits set by Congress. The Reclamation Act binds them to state water law and to the rights of those who actually use the water.
- The Federal Circuit’s decision revives a form of discretion Congress prohibited. By treating the federal government as a property-rights arbiter, the decision allows regulators to override settled expectations and state-law priorities.
- This problem extends far beyond California. Similar issues have arisen in other Western cases, including those involving the McCarran Amendment and other federal statutes, reflecting a broader effort by federal agencies to reclaim control Congress took away.
What’s at Stake
If the Federal Circuit’s decision stays in place, federal regulators could effectively regain the authority Congress denied them—deciding who receives water during shortages based on administrative policy, political expedience, and favoritism rather than established law.
For Western communities, irrigators, and municipalities that would mean uncertainty not just in times of drought, but in every season that follows.
Case Timeline:
- October 9, 2025: Mountain States Legal Foundation files an amicus brief in the case of City of Fresno v. United States, urging the Supreme Court to grant review and reaffirm that federal regulators cannot unilaterally redefine or redistribute state-based water rights.
- December 15, 2025: The Supreme Court of the United States denied cert.
