OCR Text |
Show 161 physical custody of it, the United States may control the allocation and use of unappropriated water so impounded. Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275 (1958); United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950). Since Section 6 instructs the Secretary to satisfy property rights in mainstream water perfected as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Act, these rights are not in jeopardy. Rights that might be recognized as of that date under state law but that do not qualify as perfected rights under Section 6 do not receive this protection. See pages 306-309, infra. Despite this fact, however, there is no need to pass on questions of ownership of water in navigable streams or of the validity against the United States of rights therein recognized by state law. There has been no showing that non-perfected rights recognized by state law as of June 25, 1929, if any, have not been satisfied since Hoover Dam was constructed. If it develops that such rights are not satisfied in the future, that will be time enough to determine whether they are of such character as require compensation for their taking. In order to sustain the Project Act as applied in this case, it need only be held that the United States may, under the Commerce clause of the Constitution, impound waters in a navigable stream and regulate the disposition thereof so long as perfected rights are satisfied, leaving open the question whether non-perfected rights recognized under state law must be compensated if they are not satisfied. Not much can be said of the argument that the Project Act constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Secretary of the Interior because there are insufficient standards to govern his allocation of the water impounded in Lake Mead. The premise is wrong. The Act imposes substantial limitations on the Secretary's discretion. He may not contract with California for more than 4,400,000 acre-feet out of 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use of mainstream water nor for more than one-half |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |