OCR Text |
Show 2. The action of the President in directing the institution of the project was not illegal, though challenged by the Comptroller General, and continuance of the project would not have been illegal if it had been completed to a substantial degree before the end of the war. The President's correspondence indicates that it was contemplated that the operation of the aqueduct would eventually be taken over by the Reclamation Service. 3. The aqueduct was after the termination of hostilities, and still is, needed to insure an adequate supply of water for the permanent naval installations and the city. 4. The cost of canceling, as of VJ-day, the contracts then outstanding was estimated at $1,000,000. 5. At the time of the hearings in February 1947, approximately $10,000,000 out of the total cost of $14,-000,000 had already been expended. Cancellation of the contracts as of that or any subsequent date might well result in valid claims equal to the cost of completion, leaving the Government with the incompleted project on it<? hands and thus involving serious economic loss without benefit to either the Government or the city. 6. The authority of the Navy Department to proceed with the construction of the aqueduct as a peacetime project after the termination of hostilities without obtaining authorization from Congress, or at least from the Naval Affairs Committees under Public Law 289, is open to serious question. In any event, regardless of the technical legal question as to the scope of the Navy's authority under the cited statutes, the exercise of sound administrative judgment required resubmission of the matter to the Congress. The Navy Department was negligent in proceeding without obtaining congressional approval. |
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. |