WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002209 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 35 River Compact, ~ 8 (a), and therefore can do nothing to upset or encroach upon the Compact's allocation of Colo- rado River water between the Upper and Lower Basins. In the construction, operation, and management of the works, the Secretary is subject to the provisions of the reclamation law, except as the Act otherwise provides. ~ 14. One of the most significanct limitations in the Act is that the Secretary is required to satisfy present per- fected rights, a matter of intense importance to those who had reduced their water rights to actual beneficial use at the time the Act became effective. ~ 6. And, of course, all of the powers granted by the Act are exercised by the Secretary and his well-established executive department, responsible to Congress and the President and subject to judicial review.86 Notwithstanding the Government's construction, own- ership, operation, and mainten~nce of the vast Colorado River works that conserve and store the river's waters and the broad power given by Congress to the Secretary of the Interior to make contracts for the distribution of the water, it is argued that Congress in ~~ 14 and 18 of the Act took away practically all the Secretary's power by permitting the States to determine with whom and on what terms the Secretary would make water contracts. Section 18 states: "Nothing herein shall be construed as interfering with such rights as the States now have either to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies and enact such laws as they may deem necessary with respect to the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders . . . ." Section 14 provides that the reclamation law, to which the Act is made a supplement, shall govern the manage- 86 See, e. g., Ickes v. Pox, 300 U, S, 82 (1937); cf, Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co" 371 U, S. 334 (1963); Boesch v. Udall, No, 332 (May 27, 1963).