- The United States Supreme Court declined to hear a California water rights dispute tied to the 2014 drought.
- Lower courts ruled federal contracts allowed priority deliveries to Exchange Contractors.
- Claims of contract breach and unconstitutional taking were rejected.
- The decision leaves Central Valley Project water allocation rules unchanged.
Wednesday, December 31, 2025 — On December 12, 2025, the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California water rights case
stemming from the state’s historic 2014 drought. The decision leaves in place a December 17, 2024, ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which rejected claims brought by the City of Fresno and multiple Central Valley irrigation and water districts.
The case centered on how the United States Bureau of Reclamation allocated water during a period of extreme shortage under the Central Valley Project, the nation’s largest federal water delivery system. By declining review, the Supreme Court ended a years-long legal effort to overturn those drought-era allocation decisions.
Who the Friant Parties Are and Why They Matter.
The plaintiffs in the case, commonly referred to as the Friant parties, include the City of Fresno, more than a dozen irrigation and water districts, and individual agricultural growers located along the east side of California’s San Joaquin Valley. These entities receive water through the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, which captures San Joaquin River flows at Friant Dam and stores them in Millerton Lake before delivering water south through the Madera and Friant-Kern canals.
Friant contractors supply surface water to farms, municipalities, and groundwater recharge areas stretching from Madera County to Kern County. The region supports some of the most productive agricultural land in the United States, including citrus orchards, nut crops, vineyards, and row crops. Many Friant growers rely heavily on surface water deliveries to reduce dependence on groundwater, which has become increasingly constrained by declining aquifer levels and state groundwater regulations.
During the extreme drought of 2014, Friant Division contractors received essentially no surface water deliveries, aside from limited public health and safety supplies. At the same time, water stored in Millerton Lake was delivered to another group of agricultural districts under older federal agreements, leaving Friant growers facing permanent crop losses, increased groundwater pumping, and substantial economic harm.
Competing Federal Obligations During the 2014 Drought.
The water deliveries at issue were shaped by long-standing contracts governing the Central Valley Project. One set of agreements, known as the Exchange Contracts, predates the Friant contracts and involves agricultural districts west of the San Joaquin Valley. Under these agreements, the federal government obtained rights to San Joaquin River water in exchange for providing substitute supplies, typically sourced from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
When drought conditions sharply reduced available supplies in 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation determined it could not meet all contractual obligations simultaneously. Federal water managers prioritized deliveries to Exchange Contractors, including water originating from the San Joaquin River, which resulted in near-zero allocations for Friant contractors that year.
The Legal Claims and Court Rulings.
The Friant parties filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging the federal government breached its contracts by diverting water to Exchange Contractors and unlawfully took property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
In 2022, the Court of Federal Claims ruled against the Friant parties. The court concluded that the Exchange Contracts gave those contractors superior rights during shortage conditions and that the Friant contracts were expressly subordinate to those obligations. The court also found that Friant contractors and growers did not possess a compensable property interest in federal project water under California law.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling in December 2024. The appellate court held that the Exchange Contracts allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to deliver San Joaquin River water to Exchange Contractors when other sources were insufficient and that the government’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable during the drought. The court also dismissed the takings claims, concluding that legal title to Central Valley Project water rights is held by the federal government, not individual contractors or growers.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear the Case.
After the Federal Circuit decision, the Friant parties sought review by the United States Supreme Court, arguing the case raised fundamental questions about water rights and the Reclamation Act of 1902. Although the Court granted additional time to file a petition, it ultimately declined to hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not establish new legal precedent. Instead, it leaves intact existing interpretations of Central Valley Project contracts and affirms prior rulings that federal agencies retain broad discretion in managing water deliveries during extreme shortages.
Implications for California Water Management.
While the litigation has concluded, its effects continue to influence water policy discussions in California. The case underscores how historic contracts, written decades before modern drought conditions and groundwater regulations, still shape water allocation outcomes today.
Since the 2014 drought, federal agencies and water districts have pursued greater coordination to avoid similar outcomes. In March 2024, Friant contractors, Exchange Contractors, and federal agencies entered into a drought resiliency agreement designed to improve water reliability and reduce the likelihood of future zero-allocation years.
As drought risk intensifies and competition for limited supplies increases, the balance between legal contracts, water reliability, and long-term planning remains a central challenge for California’s water system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Friant contractors receive little or no water in 2014?
During the extreme drought, the Bureau of Reclamation lacked sufficient water to meet all obligations and prioritized deliveries required under older Exchange Contracts.
Who are the Friant contractors?
They are cities, irrigation districts, and water districts along the east side of California’s San Joaquin Valley that receive water from the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.
Did the courts rule that Friant contractors have no water rights?
The courts ruled that Friant contractors have contractual delivery rights, but not property rights protected under the Fifth Amendment.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving lower court rulings in place without issuing a new opinion.
Does this decision change how water will be allocated in future droughts?
No. The decision confirms existing contract interpretations but does not establish new allocation rules or policies.
