410 U.S. 719 (1973)
The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District consists of 193,000 acres of intensively cultivated, highly fertile farm land located in the Tulare Lake Basin. Its population consists of 77 persons, including 18 children, most of whom are employees of one or another of the four corporations that farm 85% of the land in the district.1
The district was organized pursuant to the California Water Storage District Act. Such districts are authorized to plan projects and execute approved projects for the acquisition, appropriation, diversion, storage, conservation, and distribution of water.2
Incidental to this general power, districts may acquire, improve, and operate any necessary works for the storage and distribution of water as well as any drainage or reclamation works connected therewith. The costs of the projects are assessed against district land in accordance with the benefits accruing to each tract held in separate ownership. They may fix tolls and charges for the use of water and collect them from all persons receiving the benefit of the water or other services in proportion to the services rendered.3
Governance of the districts is undertaken by a board of directors. Each director is elected from one of the divisions within the district. General elections for the directors are to be held in odd-numbered years. Only the holders of title to land are entitled to vote at a general election. Each voter may vote in each precinct in which any of the land owned by him is situated and may cast one vote for each one hundred dollars, or fraction thereof, worth of his land, exclusive of improvements, minerals, and mineral rights therein, in the precinct.4
Appellants are landowners, a landowner-lessee, and residents within the area, included in the appellee’s water storage district. They brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to prevent appellee from giving effect to certain provisions of the California Water Code. They allege that §§ 41000 and 41001 unconstitutionally deny to them the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in that only landowners are permitted to vote in water storage district general elections, and votes in those elections are apportioned according to the assessed valuation of the land.
A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and the case was submitted on factual statements of the parties and briefs, without testimony or oral argument. A majority of the District Court held that both statutes comported with the dictates of the Equal Protection Clause, and appellants have appealed that judgment directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits California from limiting the franchise in water storage district general elections to landowners?5
The Equal Protection Clause permits a state to limit the franchise in elections for a special-purpose district to landowners.6 This rule applies when the district has a limited purpose and its activities disproportionately affect landowners as a group rather than exercising normal governmental powers over all residents.78
No. The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District consists of 193,000 acres of intensively cultivated farmland in the Tulare Lake Basin with a population of 77 persons, including 18 children, most of whom are employees of four corporations that farm 85 percent of the land. The district was organized pursuant to the California Water Storage District Act and is authorized to plan and execute projects for the acquisition, appropriation, diversion, storage, conservation, and distribution of water. It may acquire, improve, and operate necessary works for the storage and distribution of water as well as drainage or reclamation works, with costs of projects assessed against district land in proportion to benefits accruing to each tract held in separate ownership and charges for services collected from persons receiving the benefit. Governance is undertaken by a board of directors elected from divisions within the district in odd-numbered years, with only holders of title to land entitled to vote at general elections. Appellants are landowners, a landowner-lessee, and residents within the area, included in the appellee’s water storage district. They brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to prevent appellee from giving effect to certain provisions of the California Water Code. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284, and the case was submitted on factual statements of the parties and briefs, without testimony or oral argument. A majority of the District Court held that both statutes comported with the dictates of the Equal Protection Clause, and appellants have appealed that judgment directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. The district's primary purpose is water storage and distribution for farming, it provides no general public services such as schools or police, and all costs and charges are assessed against or collected from land in proportion to benefits received, so that economic burdens fall on landowners rather than residents as such.9 Therefore the limitation of the franchise to landowners satisfies equal protection.10
The district does not exercise normal governmental powers and its operations disproportionately affect landowners, satisfying the exception recognized for special-purpose units.
The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit California from limiting the franchise in water storage district general elections to landowners.11
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice Douglas, with whom Justices Brennan and Marshall joined, dissented from the judgment upholding the landowner-only franchise.12 He argued that the water storage district performs important governmental functions including flood control that affect all residents within the district.13 The district had repeated flood control problems, and mismanagement of flood waters in 1969 flooded 88,000 acres and threatened residents' homes.14
The appellee district has large levees, and if they are broken, damage to houses and loss of life are imminent.15 The district's powers of eminent domain, taxation, and cooperation with state and federal agencies make it a governmental entity subject to one-person one-vote requirements.16 Douglas concluded that all residents, lessees, and landowners regardless of acreage must be granted an equal franchise because the district's activities implicate the entire community.17
Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits California from weighting votes in water storage district elections according to the assessed valuation of land?18
No. The Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District has put into operation multi-million-dollar projects with costs assessed equally per acre according to benefits received.21 In one project the J. G. Boswell Company owning land assessed at $3,782,220 received 37,825 votes while three small landowners with under $100 assessed valuation received one vote each, yet each acre bore the same $13.26 assessment so that the company paid $817,685 and the small owners paid $46.22
Because the benefits and burdens to each landowner are in proportion to the assessed value of the land, the legislative decision to weight votes accordingly is rationally based and does not violate equal protection.23
The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit California from weighting votes in water storage district elections according to the assessed valuation of land.24
Whether the Equal Protection Clause requires that nonlandowning residents within a water storage district be permitted to vote in elections for its directors?25
No. Although residents may be affected by district activities such as potential flooding, the economic burdens of district operations fall solely on landowners through assessments that become liens on land and charges collected in proportion to services rendered.28 The California Legislature could rationally conclude that landowners alone should control the district because they bear the entire cost and because their consent was necessary to subject their land to substantial assessment liens.29 Therefore excluding nonlandowning residents does not violate equal protection.
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that nonlandowning residents within a water storage district be permitted to vote in elections for its directors.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice Douglas, with whom Justices Brennan and Marshall joined, dissented from the judgment upholding the landowner-only franchise. He argued that the water storage district performs important governmental functions including flood control that affect all residents within the district. The district had repeated flood control problems, and mismanagement of flood waters in 1969 flooded 88,000 acres and threatened residents' homes.
The appellee district has large levees, and if they are broken, damage to houses and loss of life are imminent. The district's powers of eminent domain, taxation, and cooperation with state and federal agencies make it a governmental entity subject to one-person one-vote requirements. Douglas concluded that all residents, lessees, and landowners regardless of acreage must be granted an equal franchise because the district's activities implicate the entire community.
Whether the Equal Protection Clause requires that lessees of land within a water storage district be permitted to vote in elections for its directors?31
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that lessees of land within a special-purpose water storage district be permitted to vote.32 This applies when the state could rationally conclude that including short-term lessees would discourage landowner participation and create administrative difficulties in verifying leasehold interests.33
No. Although lessees have an interest in water availability and project costs that may be passed on through rent, the term lessee encompasses a wide spectrum from month-to-month tenants to long-term holders.34 California could rationally fear that short-term lessees would enable manipulation by large landowners or that landowners would refuse to form districts if short-term lessees held major voting power.35 Administration would be difficult because assessment rolls do not disclose leaseholds and short-term leases need not be recorded.36 Lessees may obtain the vote by contractual assignment in longer leases.37
Therefore the exclusion of lessees does not violate equal protection.
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that lessees of land within a water storage district be permitted to vote in elections for its directors.38