OCR Text |
Show 571 the Army is directed to give full consideration and recognition to the needs of fish and other wildlife resources and their habitat dependent on such waters, and it is required generally to operate and maintain pool levels as though navigation were carried on throughout the year.418 Operation of works as though navigation were carried on is thus required whether needed or not. From the foregoing provisions, it may readily be seen that there are areas of uncertainty in the case of potential conflicts among alternative uses to which a project or series of projects on the same river may be devoted unless there be adopted a standard uniform for the river basin. Some operational decisions are necessarily left to administra- tive discretion, a discretion which may be shared by several agencies within the same river basin.419 Furthermore, these agencies have general statutory responsibilities to foster and promote different water uses.420 This fact alone may impede interagency agreement on an operational program. In addi- tion, there are definite limitations upon the authority of an agency to transfer its responsibility to an interagency group seeking resolution of conflicting water uses.421 An alternative 418 Act of June 19,1948, 62 Stat. 497, 16 U. S. O. 665a (Supp. III). 419 In addition to operation of navigation and flood-control projects by the Army Engineers, and irrigation projects by the Bureau of Reclamation, federal power-marketing functions are largely consolidated in the Secretary of the Interior. See supra, pp. 293-300. Also, projects under the supervision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be involved. See supra, pp. 250-254. 420 See supra, pp. 508-510. 421 In connection with such transfers, it should be noted that Congress has authorized each department head to prescribe regulations "not inconsistent with law" for the government of his department, the conduct of its officers and clerks, for the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody and use of property appertaining to it. R. S. § 161, from Act of July 27, 1789, 1 Stat. 28, as amended, 5 U. S. O. 22. It would seem that any transfer of a function vested by statute in a department head would be "inconsistent with law." 27 Ops. Att'y Gen. 542, 546 (1909) ; 29 Ops. Att'y qen 247, 249 (1911) ; 30 Ops. Att'y Gen. 119, 122-123 (1913) ; 36 Ops. Att'y Gen. 75 (1929). See also supra, p. 435. Furthermore, Congress has often indicated affirmatively whether and how a function may be transferred. Such authorizations are usually re- stricted to personnel within the department or agency concerned. For |