Laserfiche WebLink
<br />preference. The legislative history of the preference provisions of <br />43 U.S.C. 485h(c) does reveal that the language was written by the <br />Bureau of Reclamation to clarify th~ legality of its practice at the <br />time of giving preference to, among'others, municipally-owned <br />distribution systems. (See the remarks of Mr. Page, the Commissioner <br />of Reclamation, and Mr. Cheadle, Chief Counsel to the Commissioner, in <br />Hearings Before the House Committeeion Irrigation and Reclamation on <br />H.R. 6773 and H.R. 6984, 76th Cong.j 1st Sess. at 120, 131, 132, 144 <br />(June 15-29, 1939). <br /> <br />Assuming arguendo, however, that municipalities without distribution <br /> <br />systems and which have not assumed full utility responsibility are <br />preference entities within the 1ang~age of 43 U.S.C. 485h(c), they are <br />still not entitled to receive an allocation of Federal power. "The <br />preference clause requi res only that public entities be. given a <br />preference over private entities in'the marketing of power generated <br />by Federal reclamation projects....~t does not require that all <br /> <br />preference customers be treated <br />preference customers receive an <br /> <br />, <br />equally or that all potential <br />, <br /> <br />a11Qtment....Nothing in the <br /> <br />legislative history of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 suggests <br />that Congress intended to limit theiSecretary's discretion to <br />, <br /> <br />interpret the preference clause in ~aking decisions as to whether or <br />I <br />how or on what terms he will sell pqwer to particular customers as <br />compared to other preference customers." City of Santa Clara v. <br />Andrus, 572 F.2d 660, 667, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 859 <br />(1978) . <br /> <br />16 <br />