OCR Text |
Show 574 INTERSTATE AD jtJIHGaTldNS Notwithstanding the Government's construction, ownership, oper- ation, and maintenance of the vast Colorado River works that con- serve and store the river's waters and the broad power given by Con- gress to the Secretary of the Interior to make contracts for the dis- tribution of the water, it is argued that Congress in §§ 14 and 18 of the Act took away practically all the Secretary's power by permitting the States to determine with whom and on what terms the Secretary would make water contracts. Section 18 states: "Nothing herein shall be construed as interfering with such rights as the States now have either to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies and enact such laws as they may deem necessary with respect to the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders. ..." Section 14 provides that the reclamation law, to which the Act is made a supplement, shall govern the management of the works except as otherwise provided, and § 8 of the Reclamation Act, much like § 18 of the Project Act, provides that it is not to be construed as affecting or interfering with state laws "relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation. . . ."87 In our view, nothing in any of these provisions affects our decision, stated earlier, that it is the Act a'nd the Secretary's contracts, not the laws of prior appropriation, that control the apportionment of water among the States. Moreover, contrary to the Master's conclusion, we hold that the Secretary in choosing between users within each State and in settling the terms of his contracts is not bound by these sections to follow state law. The argument that § 8 of the Reclamation Act requires the United States in the delivery of water to follow priorities laid down by state law has already been disposed of by this Court in Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958), and reaffirmed in City of Fresno v. California, 372 U.S. 627 (1963). In Ivanhoe we held that, even though § 8 of the Reclamation Act preserved state law, that general provision could not override a specific provision of the same Act prohibiting a single landowner from getting water for more than 160 acres. We said: "As we read § 8, it merely requires the United States to comply with state law when, in the construction and operation of a rec- lamation project, it becomes necessary for it to acquire water rights or vested interests therein. But the acquisition of water rights must not be confused with the operation of federal projects. As the Court said in Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra, at 615: 'We do not suggest that where Congress has provided a system of regulation for federal projects, it must give way before an in- consistent state system.' . . . We read nothing in | 8 that compels the United States to deliver water on conditions imposed by the State." Id., at 291-392. Since § 8 of the Reclamation Act did not subject the Secretary to state law in disposing of water in that case, we cannot, consistently 87 "Nothing in ... [this Act] shall be construed as affecting or intended to ajffect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appro- priation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired there- under, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of such sections, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing . . . [herein] shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropria- tor, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof." 43 U.S.C. § 383. |