OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 575 with lyanhoe, hold that the Secretary must be bound by state law in disposing of water under the Project Act. Nor does § 18 of the Project Act require the Secretary to contract according to state law. That Act was passed in the exercise of con- gressional power to control navigable water for purposes of flood con- trol, navigation, power generation, and other objects,88 and is equally sustained by the power of Congress to promote the general welfare through projects for reclamation, irrigation, or other internal improve- ments.89 Section 18 merely preserves such rights as the States "now" have, that is, such rights as they had at the time the Act was passed. While the States were generally free to exercise some jurisdiction over these waters before the Act was passed, this right was subject to the Federal Government's right to regulate and develop the river.90 Where the Government, as here, has exercised this power and under- taken a comprehensive project for the improvement of a great river and for the orderly and beneficial distribution of water, there is no room for inconsistent state laws.91 As in Ivanhoe, where the general provision preserving state law was held not to override a specific provision stating the terms for disposition of the water, here we hold that the general saving language of § 18 cannot bind the Secretary by state law and thereby nullify the contract power expressly conferred upon him by § 5.92 Section 18 plainly allows the States to do things not inconsistent with the Project Act or with federal control of the river, for example, regulation of the use of tributary water and pro- tection of present perfected rights.93 What other things the States are free to do can be decided when the occasion arises. But where the Secretary's contracts, as here, carry out a congressional plan for the complete distribution of waters to users, state law has no place.94 Before the Project Act was passed, the waters of the Colorado Eiver, though numbered by the millions of acre-feet, flowed too haltingly or too freely, resulting in droughts and floods. The problems caused by these conditions proved too immense and the solutions too costly for any one State or all the States together. In addition, the States, despite repeated efforts at a settlement, were unable to agree on how much water each State should get. With the health and growth of the Lower Basin at stake, Congress responded to the pleas of the States to come to their aid. The result was the Project Act and the harnessing of the bountiful waters of the Colorado to sustain growing cities, to support expanding industries, and to transform dry and barren deserts into lands that are livable and productive. » Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931). s» United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Go., 339 U.S. 725, 738 (1950). 90 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Ooop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152, 171 (1946). See United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 62-72 (1913) ; United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945). w See Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931) ; Nebraska V. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 615 (1945) ; First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946). 92 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945), holds nothing to the contrary. There the Court found it unnecessary to decide what rights the United States had under federal law to the unappropriated water of the North Platte River, since the water rights on which the projects in that case rested had in fact been obtained in compliance with state law. 93 See First Iowa Hydo-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152, 175-176 (1946), where this Court limited the effect of § 27 of the Federal Power Act, which ex- pressly "saved" certain state laws, to vested property rights. 94 By an Act of September 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1726, the Secretary must supply water to Boulder City, Nevada. It follows from our conclusions as to the inapplicability of state law that, contrary to the Master's conclusion, Boulder City's priorities are not to be determined by Nevada law. |