WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v o W 1-' '":~ of the Department of the Interior that as drainage wells are completed responsibility for their maintenance and operation is transferred to the district. We are further advised by the Solicitor that at present "there are no rules and regulations setting forth the respective func- tions of the irrigation district or the Bureau of Recla- mation with relation to the operation of the existing drainage works used for drainage of lands in the Wellton- Mohawk region." (Letter of December 20, 1963, Solicitor, Department of the Interior to this office.) To recover damages from the district, it would be essential to show the responsibility of the district as of the approximate time of the injury. It appears to us that, on the basis of cases we have examined, a court would hold that responsibility for operation of the drainage program at present rests with the district. A second caveat to be noted is that if the 1944 treaty were set up as a defense to such an action a broad inter- pretation of Article 10 as allowing the delivery of water without regard to quality, an interpretation which might well be made by a court sitting in Arizona, 'Would prob- ably modify otherwise-existing rights and thus defeat the action. 3. We think there is a bare possibility that recovery could be obtained in the Court of Claims of the United States for a "taking" of property. We think an action could not be successfully brought by injured landowners against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the reason that such an action would appear, on the basis of cases we have ex- amined, to fall within the "discretionary function" exception of the act. It is possible though not at all clear that recovery could be had in the Court of Claims of the United States by injured landowners for a "taking" of property by the United States. . . 1m I i )