|
<br />Pacific Law Journal/Vol. /9
<br />
<br />'", ~:tmalion' to fill its newly constructed, but highly conlroversial
<br />,~~. Mclones Dam. Th~ dam was ~ facility of the Central Valley
<br />Icel and a. Reclamation Act proJccl. The issue before the COurl
<br />Itl .de~er~TII~e the degree lhal the act of filling would be subject
<br />. lhc JUrISdiction ,or the California Stale Water Resources Control
<br />.\r~. the controllmg stale water rights authority.lu The Court made
<br />,Pille :lear lh~t Section B of the Reclamation Act subjects federal
<br />.11n,allOn P~oJCCI5 10 slale waler law unlcss to do so would be
<br />"I~~llOl~nr wl~h a Congrc:ssion:1I direclive. The Court addressed the
<br />hlOD In Arrzontt v. California, and also disapproved the dictum
<br />: I anh~e,::r;gat;on District v. McCracken'" and City of Fresno \1'.
<br />:orma. The Court cited Arizona 11'. California durins its dis-
<br />:on of the place of Slate law.
<br />III ArlZOl'Jo \1'. Colifornio, the 51ales had askrd Ihe Court 10 rule
<br />: h;'ll ~Iale law would conlrol in thr disuibulion of WOller from Ihe
<br />IInulder Canyon Pr?ject, a mauive mullistale reclamalion project
<br />.'n rhr Colorado River, Arrer reviewing Ihe legis1:uive hislory of
<br />:'u= Boulder Canyon Projecl ACI .... the Courl concluded Ihat
<br />(. ~~ause of. Ihe u~ique size and multislale Scope of the Projecl,
<br />, ngress dId not Inlend Ihe Slate fo inlerfere with the Secrelary's
<br />"\\er 10 determine wilh whom and on what terms water cOnlract5
<br />'",uld be made. While Ihe Courl in rejecting the Slatrs' claims
<br />" realed Ihe language from Ivonho~ and City of Fl?sno as 10 the
<br />"l'Ie of s.ee. 8. Ihere was no need for iI 10 rearrirm such language
<br />'.ept as If relaled 10 Ihe singular legislative hislory of Ihe Boulder
<br />.tn)'on Project Ac(,'J9
<br />, l' aUlhor sugges15 lhat disavowing Ihe dictum in Ivanhoe and
<br />:': Fusno and re~ffirming .ole singular legislalive hislory of Ihe
<br />:r C~nyon P,roJect Act IS hardly sufficient fo overrule (he
<br />. (0; pnor holdmg in Arizona v. California thal federal law
<br />'Il~ transac~ions in the Lower Basin, nor'40 the Court's aClions
<br />. of I~fe ~ baSIS. for holding thai a Colorado kiver water contractor
<br />'.\ rlh ImpuRlly sell WOller slored behind Hoover Dam 10 any
<br />The, Secretary is slill Ihe Walermasler of Ihe River in Ihe
<br />r Basrn,
<br />
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />1988 I CQlifomia Colorado River Issues
<br />
<br />Further, IwO years after Californitl 11'. United Stotts. the Supreme
<br />Courl decided Bryant \1'. Y~II~n.no The Court noted the ho1dins in
<br />Calilo~n;Q v, United States, but commented:
<br />In Arjzona \1'. Coli/ornio, we held Ihal the Project Act vested in
<br />Ihe Secrelary the power to conlr." for projecl water deliveries
<br />independent of Ihe direcllon of Sec. 8 or lhe Reclamation Ad to
<br />proceed in accordance with Slale law and or the admonition of Sec,
<br />18 not to interfere with Slale law, . . .IJI
<br />
<br />In an accompanying footnote the Courl stated:
<br />In lerms of reclamalion law generally, the import of the Court',
<br />opinion in this respecl was considerably narrowed in Californio v.
<br />Ul'Jiud Srot~s. . '. but th~ IQtt~r cas~ did not qu~st;ollth~ d~scrip';o"
<br />of th~ Secrerory's power under the Project Act itselJ.m
<br />
<br />The law of the River as prescribed in Arizona 11'. California, and
<br />Ihe rules for the dislribution and use of water in the Lower Basin
<br />of the Colorado River remain unchanged.
<br />There remain two subsidiary issues on this question of the intrastate
<br />transfer of Colorado River water. First, does the "appurtenacy"
<br />provision of the Reclamation Act apply to such transfers. and sec.
<br />ondly, if state law applies, does the Slale Water Resources Control
<br />Board have aulhority to reallocate Colorado River water based on
<br />California Water Code prioritie5':"".We will deal with these queslions
<br />brieny,
<br />The "appurtenancy" issue inv'olves a proviso to Section 8 of the
<br />Reclamation Act of 1902. Seclion 8 has been construed to require
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation (0 comply with state water law unless to
<br />do so would interfere with a clear Congressional direclive.1JJ Section
<br />8 provides:
<br />NOlhin& in this Act shall be construed as aHecting or intended to
<br />aHect or 10 in any way interfere with the laws or any Slate or
<br />Territory relaling to Ihe conlrol. approprialion. use, or distribution
<br />of water used in irrigation, or any vesled right acquired thereunder,
<br />and Ihe Secrelary of Ihe Interior. in carrying out Ihe provisions or
<br />this Act, shall proceed in conrormilY with such laws, and nOlhinl
<br />herein shall in any way aHeet any right any landowner. appropriator,
<br />or user of water in, to, or rrom any interstate slream or the WOller.
<br />chereof: Provided. That th~ right to th~ un of woter ocquired under
<br />
<br />~I.~;' in:~t'linl'o. nOle Ihl' Pro'!,~r Mcycr, in his o"n nlmt', IiIcd In IfIwtin4 n";lfIr
<br />10 Q r. Unll<</ Stlfltn, Utl,nl Iht Court 10 o~e"ule ill Ari:olllfl .. Cllfl/om;1fI
<br />In .tl:lrd 10 Iht pla<'(or Illle II" in Ttdt", "'lltt ptojccU' '
<br />I" US. 2" 119'0).. .
<br />172 US, (';27 f1\l6l). (
<br />, Jhrorml y. UnilCd ~Iln, 4n U.S. 6oi', 6oi7 (1910).
<br />
<br />DO. .., U.S. ]!2 (19RO).
<br />DI. S'YIfI"',4n U.S. 11370.
<br />In. td. II )70 n.21 (emphalis Iddtd).
<br />I]], S~ CllirOl'nia... Unued Slatel,.]I U.s, ,.,. 671 (19101,
<br />
<br />1423
<br />
|