OCR Text |
Show 182 ing of the Reclamation Fund, the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Ninth Circuit in 1909 found no difficulty in the way of holding that the "use of funds contemplated by the reclamation act is for the common welfare."190 Recently pointing out that the only limitation on the power to tax and appropriate for the general welfare is that it must be "exercised for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose," the Supreme Court of the United States suggested that Congress may promote the general welfare through "large- scale projects for reclamation, irrigation, or other internal improvement."191 After a preliminary sketch of the framework of the 1902 Act, we shall here, as in earlier chapters, review the applicable provisions of law as they relate to the steps in the develop- ment of a project. In other words, we shall group them for review in the following sequence: preparing for projects, au- thorization of projects, prosecution of projects, and operation of projects. But one feature should be especially remembered. Reimbursement from project beneficiaries is accomplished through contractual arrangements. While the various provi- sions of law have undergone many changes, such contracts have of course been altered only with the consent of the signa- tory parties. There are thus outstanding contracts unaffected by many provisions of subsequently enacted legislation. It should also be noted that many provisions of Reclamation Law have been rendered ineffective, or have been superseded by later legislation, and are irrelevant so far as future reclamation projects are concerned. But not having been expressly re- pealed, many such provisions nevertheless continue to appear in the United States Code. Federal irrigation and related activities are today performed almost entirely by the Bureau of Reclamation under the super- vision of the Secretary of the Interior.192 It may also be noted 180 United States v. Hanson, 167 Fed. 881, 885 (C. A. 9,1909). 191 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 738 (1950). See also supra, pp. 57-58. And see Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508, 525 (1941). 1M Act of May 26, 1926, 44 Stat. 657; Reorganization Plan No. Ill of 1950, § 1,15 F. R. 3174; Department of the Interior Order No. 2563, May 2,1950. |