Cheap Water for a Lush Valley

Big growers and unwary prisoners win Supreme Court tests

California's Imperial Valley, just above the Mexican border, is one of the world's lushest agricultural areas, a cornucopia of fruit and vegetables, where several crops are harvested a year. What helped make this former desert bloom is a bountiful supply of federally subsidized irrigation water. Last week, in a victory for the valley's large landholders, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Government must continue to provide them with low-cost water.

Under federal acts of 1902 and 1926, intended to preserve the small, single-family farm, Congress limited cheap water to landholdings no larger than 160 acres. But a law that took effect in 1929 was viewed by the Federal Government as exempting the Imperial Valley, and water from the Colorado River flowed to small and large farms alike. Then, after a 1964 policy reversal, the Johnson Administration sued to enforce the 160-acre ceiling. The Government lost, and the new Nixon Administration chose not to appeal. But the suit was kept alive by farm workers hoping to buy pieces of the large holdings which, under the 1926 law, would have to be sold at prices based on their lower, non-irrigated value. Led by their sympathetic doctor, Ben Yellen, they pressed an appeal of their own and won, setting the stage for last week's ruling.

Yellen, a Brooklyn native who moved to the Imperial Valley in the 1930s for his health, vowed to continue his crusade against what he calls "feudal empires." Said he: "It has cost me about $60,000, but I'm going to keep at it until I run out of money or croak." He will have to battle more than the Supreme Court. The Senate has approved a total exemption for the valley, and the House is expected to follow suit. The Senate bill would multiply by eight (to 1,280 acres) the ceiling that applies to the other 11 million acres of Western land receiving federal water. However romantic the small family farm may be, Congress seems resigned to the fact that the average farm is growing larger.

Another winner in the Supreme Court last week was Billy Henry, a convicted robber, who will get a new trial because key evidence against him came from an informer in violation of Henry's right to counsel. The 6-to-3 decision, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, was a surprisingly liberal one for a court considered tough on criminal defendants' rights.

Henry was indicted for the 1972 robbery of a Norfolk, Va., bank and, pending trial, held in a cell block with a forger named Edward Nichols. A secret FBI informant, Nichols had been told to "be alert to" any statements Henry made about the robbery. The two became so friendly that Henry confided facts that helped convict him.

The majority agreed that the informant's conduct amounted to interrogation, and since Henry was in custody, he was entitled to have a lawyer present. The test, devised 16 years ago in Massiah vs. U.S., is whether the informant "deliberately elicited" the statements. In a dissent, Justice Harry Blackmun complained that even evidence obtained from a " 'negligent' triggering of events" will now be inadmissible. But liberal scholars were pleased. Said the University of Michigan's Yale Kamisar: "After years of moaning about keeping out reliable evidence, the Chief Justice writes an opinion making Massiah stronger than ever." -

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.