Whether the District may abrogate the farmers' water rights that it previously conceded, and that this Court recognized, in Bryant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley, including petitioners, rely on water delivered by respondent Imperial Irrigation District to irrigate their lands. Because this water comes from a federal reclamation project, its delivery is governed by state and federal law, the latter of which mandates that “[t]he right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this [Reclamation] Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.” 43 U.S.C. § 372. In this case, respondent District claims that it is the sole owner of water rights in the Valley. But in Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352 (1980), a case in which the District was also a party, the District argued that it would be “wrong” to conclude that “the District, not the landowners, owns” the water rights, because federal law requires those “rights be satisfied with respect to individual landowners and their lands.” Brief for Pet’r Imperial Irrigation District, No. 79-435, at 32-33, 50; Pet. for Cert. No. 79-345, at 16, 17. At the District’s urging, therefore, this Court concluded that the water right was “equitably owned by the beneficiaries to whom the District was obligated to deliver water,” Bryant, 447 U.S. at 371—namely, farmers like petitioners. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the District may abrogate the farmers’ water rights that it previously conceded, and that this Court recognized, in Bryant. 2. Whether Imperial Valley farmers have federally protected water rights under § 8 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. § 372.