Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002212 <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />has exercised this power and undertaken a comprehensive <br />project for the improvement of a great river and for the <br />orderly and beneficial distribution of water, there is no <br />room for inconsistent state laws.'l As in Ivanhoe, where <br />the general provision preserving state law was held not <br />to override a specific provision stating the terms for dis- <br />position of the water, here we hold that the general saving <br />language of S 18 cannot bind the Secretary by state law <br />and thereby nullify the contract power expressly conferred <br />upon him by S 5."' Section 18 plainly allows the States to <br />do things not inconsistent with the Project Act or with <br />federal control of the river, for example, regulation of the <br />use of tributary water and protection of present perfected <br />rights."3 What other things the States are free to do <br />can be decided when the occasion arises. But where the <br />Secretary's contracts, as here, carry out a congressional <br />plan for the complete distribution of waters to users, state <br />law has no place." <br />Before the Project Act was passed, the waters of the <br />Colorado River, though numbered by the millions of acre- <br />feet, flowed too haltingly or too freely, resulting in <br /> <br />.1 See Arizona v. California, 283 U. S, 423 (1931); Nebraska v. <br />Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 615 (1945); Pirst Iowa Hydro-Eiee. Coop. <br />v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U. S. 152 (1946). <br />"Nebraska v, Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589 (1945), holds nothing to <br />the contrary. There the Court found it unnecessary to decide what <br />rights the United States had under federal law to the unappropriated <br />water of the North Platte River, since the water rights on which the <br />projects in that case rested had in fact been obtained in compliance <br />with state law. <br />'3 See First Iowa Hydro-Elee, Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, <br />328 U. S, 152, 175-176 (1946), where this Court limited the effect of <br />S 27 of the Federal Power Act, which expressly "saved" certain state <br />laws, to vested property rights. <br />'4 By an Act, of September 2,1958,72 Stat. 1726, the Secretary must <br />supply water to Boulder City, Nevada. It follows from our conclu- <br />sions as to the inapplicability of state law that, contrary to the <br />Master's conclusion, Boulder City's priorities are not to be determined <br />by Nevada law. <br />