WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002211 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA.. 37 necessary for it to acquire water rights or vested in- terests therein. But the acquisition of water rights must not be confused with the operation 'of federal projects. As the Court said in Nebraska v. Wyo- ming, supra, at 615: 'We do not suggest that where Congress has provided a system of regulation for federal projects, it must give way before an incon- sistent state system.' . .. We read nothing in ~ 8 that compels the United States to deliver water on conditions imposed by the State." Id., at 291-292. Since ~ 8 of the Reclamation Act did not subject. the Secretary to state law in disposing of water in that case, we cannot, consistently with Ivanhoe, hold that the Secre- tary must be bound by state law in disposing of water under the Project Act. Nor does ~ 18 of the Project Act require the Secretary to contract according to state law. ' That Act was passed in the exercise of congressional power to control navigable water for purposes of flood control, navigation, power generation, and other objects,88 and is equally sustai~ed by the power of Congress to promote the general welfare through projects for reclamation, irrigation, or other internal improvements.89 Section 18 merely preserves such rights as the States "now" have, that is, such rights as they had at the time the Act was passed. While the States were generally free to exercise some jurisdiction over these waters before the Act was passed, this right was subject to the Federal Government's right to regulate and develop the river.'o Where the Government, as here, 88 Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423 (1931). 89 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co" 339 U. S. 725, 738 (1950). 90 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U. S. 152, 171 (1946). See United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 62-72 (1913); United States v. Willow River Power Co" 324 U. S. 499 (1945).