WSP12582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001534 938 ARIZONA LAW REnEW (Vol 24 ver power for use within the state if a firm contract could be executed within six months.87 Nevada was unable at the time either to use or pay for one-third of the power.88 Nevada and Arizona contend., however, that in offering Nevada one-third of the Hoover power, Wilbur was actino in recognition of Nevada's "super-preference" right.89 The states assert that. in accordance with the rule that the interpretation of a statute by the ad- ministrative body implementing it is entitled to great weight,90 Wilbur's action in recognition of the "super-preference" right asserted by Arizona and Nevada is entitled to deference in interpreting the statute.91 Nevada and Arizona further assert that this "super-preference" right. by its own terms, applies in all allotments of Hoover power, and did not terminate after the original allotment.92 This argument is based upon sec. tion 617d, which contemplated that new contracts would be made fifty years after the first delivery of power.93 Thus, for Arizona and Nevada. the terms of section 617d(c), which on their face apply to all contracts for the generation, sale, distribution, and delivery of electrical energy, will ap- ply on renewal, activating the "super-preference" right.94 , Right of Renewal Closely related to, and flowing from, this argument is the contention of the two states that the "super-preference" right takes precedence over the right of contract renewal provided in section 617d(b).95 As Nevada and Arizona assert, the right of renewal granted in section 617d(b) is not absolute, but is instead qualified by the "unless" clause of that section.. That clause provides that renewal need not be granted if the transmission lines and other facilities owned and used by the contractor to take Hoover power are purchased and if damages are paid for any effect on property that is not taken.96 This provision had ,its genesis in two early versions of the BCP A, the 87. Letter from Secretary of Ihe Inlerior R.L. Wilbur 10 Senator Oddie (Mar. 24, 1930). Us Hearings on H.R. 12902 Before House Comm. on Appropriations, 71st Cong., 2nd Sess. 80 (1930). 88. See Nevada Brief. supra nOIe 8, at 120. The state therefore chose to accept tbe I~ allotment wilhdrawable from Ihe allotments of Ihe City of Los Angeles and Soulhem California Edison. See Letter from Secretary of Ihe Interior Wilbur to Ihe Senale Committee on Appropria- tions, in CONTRACTS, supra note 4, at 601. See supra notes 22-35 and accompanying text 89. Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 119. 90. See, e.g., Quem v. Mandley, 436 U.S. 725 (1978); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965); Power Reactor Dev. Co. v. International Union of Elcet., 367 U.S. 396 (1961). 91. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 88. 92. Se~ it/. at 10. , 93. See id. at 11; 43 U.s.c. fi 617d(a) (1976). Section 617d(a) provides Ihat "(n)o contract fOf electrical energy . . . shall be of longer duration than fifty years from Ihe date at which sudl energy is ready for delivery." It/. The original contract wilh Ihe City of Los Angeles was for a SO-year period. and Ihe other contracts, which took effect shortly after the energy was ready for delivery to the city, were scllcd- uled to terminate when Ihe city's did See CoNTRACTS, supra note 4, at 63; supra note 4 anol accompanying texL 94. See Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 10, 12. 95. 43 U.S.C. fi 617d(b) (1976); Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 16-17; see supra notes 43-51 and accompanying text ~ 96. See 43 U.S.C. fi 617d(b) (1976); Nevada Brief, supra note 8, at 15-17; supra notes 43-51 and accompanying text ". ../-' I I ~ . f I I I 16 pr Se, j 2d