OCR Text |
Show 162 of surplus. Section 4(a). He must satisfy present perfected rights. Section 6. Contracts for water for irrigation and domestic uses must be for permanent service. Section 5. The Secretary, his permitees, licensees and con-tractees, "shall observe and be subject to and controlled by" the Colorado River Compact. Sections 8(a), 13(b) and 13 (c). The Secretary and those claiming under him are subject to any compact between Arizona, California and Nevada, or any two of them, approved by Congress. Section 8(b).25 The Secretary is subject to the provisions of the reclamation law in the operation and management of the works authorized by the Project Act, except as otherwise provided therein. Section 14. The Secretary has in fact exercised his discretion, as will be more fully explained later, by making contracts which apportion the water available in Lake Mead substantially along the lines which Congress proposed in Section 4(a) of the Project Act as a fair and equitable division among Arizona, California and Nevada. For these reasons I have concluded that the delegation of authority to the Secretary of the Interior to apportion Lake Mead water is constitutional and that the Secretary has exercised this authority in a reasonable manner. Only two other contentions of the parties regarding the proper interpretation of the Secretary's authority under the Project Act need be discussed at this point. Arizona, while agreeing with the United States that the Project Act constitutionally delegates to the Secretary of the Interior the power to allocate mainstream water among the claimant states, argues that the second paragraph of Section 4(a) establishes a formula for the allocation which the Secretary is required precisely to follow, and that those clauses in her water delivery contract which deviate from the for- 25 Compacts approved by Congress after January 1, 1929, are subject to contracts made by the Secretary prior to congressional approval of such compacts. |
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 |