AZ vs. CA:10 California Exhibits, Vol. X; Nos. 458-528

page 7

AQUEDUCT NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 7 the act. And it must be construed as providing that a transfer of a function from one department to another does not ipso facto make the appropriation of th« second department available for the performance of the transferred function. Rather, it provides that the funds of the first department must continue to be expended for the purpose for which appropriated albeit under the direction of the second or performing department. Application of the provisions of said section 3 to the matter under consideration here leaves inescapable the conclusion that the cited provisions of law provide no authority for the use of Navy appropriations for the construction of the San Diego aqueduct. While the President had authority to transfer to the Secretary of the Navy the powers bestowed by the Congress upon the Secretary of War under sections 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the act of July 2, 1940, his authority with respect to the funds to be used for such work was meticulously circumscribed by the Congress in said section 3. While the Second War Powers Act, 1942, authorizes the lease or other disposition of facilities and property, it can only be construed as relating to facilities or property lawfully acquired and contains no authority to carry on projects for which appropriated funds otherwise are not available. It appears to have no proper application to the present case. Moreover, there are certain other factors to which the attention of the Congress should be specifically directed. The act of July 2, 1940, is described in its title as having for its purpose "To expedite the strengthening of the national defense." And conditions existing at the time of its passage amply demonstrate that the statute was not intended as permanent legislation, but only to meet a temporary emergent situation. It was passed almost a year and a half before the entry of the United States into the war, at a time when every effort was being expended to prepare the defenses of this country for any eventuality in connection with the war hi Europe. While it was provided by subsequent legislation (act of June 5, 1942, 56 Stat. 317) that the provisions of the said act should remain in force "during the continuance of the present war and for 6 months after the termination of the war," there would seem to be serious doubt that its provisions contemplated the undertaking-after the surrender of Germany and Japan and the cessation of actual hostilities-of a long-range project such as the construction of the San Diego aqueduct which, even at the outset, it was estimated, would take about 2 years to build. So, there is involved not only a question of an expenditure being made from N avy funds instead of Army funds, but essentially a question of whether the work properly could be charged to the public funds of any agency under existing law. In conclusion, there have been set forth in this report only such salient facts as appeared necessary to a discussion of the legal issues involved in connection with this project. There are many collateral facts of record in the General Accounting Office, as well as various documents arid papers in support of the statements made herein, which will readily be made available if and when desired. Respectfully submitted. Lindsay C. Warren, Comptroller General of the United States. o