OCR Text |
Show United States vs. State of Arizona. 9 be an afterthought born of the controversy disclosed by the complaint and about to be here submitted. Section 25 of the Act of April 21, 1904, does not authorize this dam. Plaintiff does not assert that it was otherwise adopted by Congress. It therefore remains only to consider whether the dam was recommended by the Chief of Engineers within the meaning of the proviso of § 202. When the Recovery Act was passed, the phrases "adopted by the Congress" and "recommended by the Chief of Engineers", when used in Acts of Congress relating to river and harbor improvements, had well-understood and definite technical meanings. The statutes, at least in the 40 years next preceding the passage of the Recovery Act, disclose: It has been the general, if not indeed the uniform, practice of Congress specifically to authorize all river and harbor improvements carried out by the United States,9 and to base its action upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers.10 That officer makes such recommendation only after preliminary examinations followed by surveys.11 Congress expressly 9The Eivers and Harbors Acts prior to that of September 22, 1922, authorized surveys and improvements and made appropriations. A typical provision was: "That the following sums . . . are hereby appropriated . . . to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, for the construction, completion, repair, and preservation of the public works hereinafter named. . . ." Act of August 8, 1917, 40 Stat. 250. The Act of September 22, 1922, omitted appropriations and adopted specified improvements: "That the following works of improvement are hereby adopted and authorized, to be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the plans recommended in the reports hereinafter designated. . . ." 42 Stat. 1038. The same language is used in $ 1 of the Acts of March 3, 1925, 43 Stat. 1186; January 21, 1927, 44 Stat. 1010, and July 3, 1930, 46 Stat. 918. See also 79 Cong. Bee, p. 5454. io(< . . . The Committee on Eivers and Harbors has pursued an invariable rule of requiring all rivers and harbors projects to have the approval and recommendation of the Corps and Chief of Engineers before we considered them eligible for consideration." Eemarks of chairman of that committee in the Committee of the Whole House considering bill for river and harbor improvements, 79 Cong. Eec, p. 5441, see also pp. 5460, 5465, 5466. Cf. $9, Act of September 22, 1922 (33 U. S. C., §568): "No project shall be considered by any committee of Congress with a view to its adoption, except with a view to a survey, if five years have elapsed since a report upon a survey of such project has been submitted to Congress pursuant to law". uTo secure greater uniformity in the recommendations and reports required of Chief of Engineers (See H. Eep. No. 795, 57th Cong., 1st session, p. 3), Congress created in his office a Board of Engineers for Eivers and Harbors, § 3, Act of June 13, 1902, 32 Stat. 372. Subsequent legislation in respect of this Board, material here, is found in § 3, Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 668; §$ 3 and 4, Act of March 4, 1913, 37 Stat. 825; § 2, June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde 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, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |