|
<br />.,
<br />
<br />28
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />mit their plnns for st.ructurcs to a State omeer for approval before be-
<br />ginning- COllstrllction,lZfl They lU"('.cl not rC'luire th<:>it. rmployecs who
<br />dri\'e Federal tJ"ltr,ks to have St.ate driYt'.rs' liccnscs.121
<br />!lut, to return to the "'"TOWel' prohlem of Federal-Stat" relntions
<br />in the water rjg]lls field:
<br />It. hils been snggestc(l that. tllCl'e arc constitutional inrirmit.ies in
<br />the l)l.f)po~als t.hat, ha\'e Ill'ell made to require all Federa.l agencies to
<br />abide I))' the laws of the Sf,atrs denting' wit.h the appropriation, con-
<br />trol, use ntHl disl.rihntioll of wntt~~I" 'Vere it not. for t.he officbl st.llnd~
<br />jll~ of tllO!-;e hy Wl10111 t.his suggestion hns been advnnccd, it would have
<br />U 1':11.11('1' hollow ring to it, p:1l't.icularl.v since the proposals are lal'g-ely
<br />mmle1rd 011 f\ Rt.at.lItc :IS v<':lIcl'ahle as section 8 of the Hcdamat.ion Act
<br />of 1002. FOltllllately, the often interl'llptr<l alld rat.her ullsystematie
<br />exposit.ion of t.he slll'pose,1 illfirmit.ies hy Assist.ant Attorney Ge.neral
<br />(as he th~n \\":1s) TIallkill ill ]!),liG 1ZB IIns rcc~lltl'y hccn l"cflll'hishc(l and
<br />made mol'c lucid in what is m'idently a can~flllly prcpnrE'd paper by
<br />Assistant. AUOl'lley General Mortou. '" The notion that. there lllay
<br />be some const.1tutional prerogat.ive in the executive depart.mcnts to
<br />proceed ~\'it.hollt. I'egul'd to Shlh~ law that would be infringed by a
<br />cong-l'cssionalrefjllil'clllC'ut. to the cont.l':1l'Y appeflrs to lUH'c dropped by
<br />tho \vayside, It. is admitted, the promicc IJeill;r that. t.he United St.ates
<br />has a proprietary interest in the unappropriated waters of olIrst.rcams,
<br />that. COIIg'rcss c0111d '"give awn}''' t.his intercst t.o the Stutes with the
<br />presllmable COllSC'll1C'llce (though this is left nnsaid) that reacquisition
<br />would have to be in accordance with the laws of the donce. It is ad-
<br />mitted also t.hat it is "competent for Congress to say to Federal of-
<br />ficers that they shall confol1n t.o St.ate law as far 08 they can without
<br />defeating the Federal pl1I-pOS~ in the acquisition of water rights"
<br />[emphasis in orig-innl] with t.he caveat added that "'Vhen COllgress
<br />authorizes 01' directs :l. FC"deral depart.ment or oflicer to construct nnd
<br />ope-rate a project wit.hin its own sphere of delegated powers, the Con-
<br />st.itution does not. permit a construction which sllbjecLc; thnt direction
<br />to the ehoice of cOllsent or veto by allY St.ate or St.ate officia1." Fill ally,
<br />it appears to be admitted that, though t.here has been "some very loose
<br />talk about t.he so-called 'delegat.ion' of t.he power to St.ate legislatures"
<br />which is ohject.ionable, the same results mIght be reached on a t.heory
<br />of "adoption" of State laws by Cougress for the guidance of Federal
<br />officials and, in vit~W of t.he 8hm'Jmflcl(, case, 130 thnt this "ndoption"
<br />Cfm hr. sll(~h n "('ontillllillg adopt.ion" l.hnt it incllltlc~ State laws cnactea
<br />nffr.l' Uw Federal net becol\les cJfcel.ivc.
<br />
<br />1M Ad':l'llla v. Cali/I'lrtlill, Ill/pm, notr {II nt 4~1 t.
<br />L.~Jflhnflon .... .uuqll/l'l'f. 2::''' U,S. 51 (1!l20). Cf'. Flee. 211(j) of' tlip Fl'dp.ral propertl
<br />and Admllll"trntl\"c ~t'r"'c("!l A("t of' Hl"!l. l]S nm~nded by F;f'C. 2 of' the net of Sept.
<br />Hl54, 6~ Stilt. 1126.40 U.S.C. 4!l1 en: "The Unltel} Stntp!l Civil Sflrvlce COlDmlR~lon IIhali
<br />II'lAUe rf't:'lllnt!onl' to !:,o'l"ern ex{'clltlve ngflnclcR In onThorlzlD~ clvlllnn perRonnf'1 to operate
<br />Oovcrnm('nt-ownN! moTor veh1clPA f'or official (lUrIl0l'E"8 . ... Such rf'~1I1ntlonFl . . .
<br />may rC'qulre opl'rntorR nnd prn"pectlve operntorR to obtnlo Illleb State Ilnd local !IC'(!ollea or
<br />pf'rmll." II" wOllltl be r('QuJred for the operation by them of' elmllor vehlcleB tor other than
<br />omclnl purpof\c.'l." . '
<br />l:ro 1Tl'nrllll!l'l on n.R. R:l2ii. f'tc., 84th Cnn.!:'., pn. 2~, 25 t., .38,43 fr" ria.
<br />l1ll :llr. ~1'Jrton'lI pnll('r I!I r('llrlntctl (nfra pp. 51 fr.
<br />110 UJ/ltcII Statu v. Bharp'Hlck, 355 U.S. 23a (1958). Mr, Morton.B commeDts 00 tblll
<br />cnll~, whlf'h 11:111 to clo wIth the AIl"lmlllltl'l"f' Crlmf'1.' Act, could rp!1f1llv hf' !1llarotpfl to the
<br />prr,hlC'm hetore the committee by Bubstltutln~ the wordB Bhown In brackets tor those In the
<br />orh..1nal IItutf!mcnt which pr('cetlc them: "There 18 nothing In the CO tiC which sanctlon8
<br />d'elc9aUo1l of' Il'gtBlntl'l"e power. The adQption ot certain State Cr1mlnnl.Jwnterl lawl
<br />almllly made tbem a part of the bod,! ot F'erferollnw to be enforced [obl'lerv ) by PederoJ
<br />otllctll1e In the admlnl.tratloD 0 Pe4erAI juatlee [water deTelopmeot propoama]."'
<br />[Blmpb8ll11 In originaL)
<br />
<br />t
<br />I
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER mGHTS LEGISI,ATION
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />Tho mHO against eOllHt.itution:tlity thus boils down to little more
<br />
<br />tllall a. choice of wurds ill the :l1'g'IIIIlCIlt. ahout "dtdegatioll" as ag:linst
<br />
<br />"a.doption:' :lIld to a. cOlIsidl'l'alJlc laek of COlIlIllon ulldcrsl:tIldill(r in
<br />
<br />the case of the limitation which 1Ur. I\Iort.on imposes on Con(J'~ess'
<br />
<br />eOlllpetence "to S:iy to Federal oDic"rs that they shall eonfol~n to
<br />Stale law."
<br />
<br />The ~;ICJ.:: of (,OIllIl~OIl undCl'st:llldillg to wl1ieh I refcr has to do,
<br />
<br />fir'st,. WIth t.he lllCfllllllg o.f the phmsc "Ift.ws of the sm'eral States
<br />
<br />relatlllg to t,he flvprOpl'lat.lOlI, control, use, al1(l distribut.ion of walcr"
<br />
<br />nw], secondly, wlth the meaning of a congressiollal :tllthuriz:lt.iol\ to
<br />
<br />n ~:edera.l :lg:cnFY to construct fI. project. in ncconlancc with such laws.
<br />
<br />AppropriatIOn, control, lise, and distribution of water" lllllst bo
<br />
<br />l'c:ul, of COllrse, with Arizona. v. Oalifornia and the Ivanhoe case in
<br />
<br />mind, Al'i:zona Y. California 1.11 makes it rcaso'llablv clcar thOlt t.he
<br />
<br />phrase. is HOt. IJro:H~ C'-Ilongh to cuver State laws giviilg State oflicia.ls
<br />
<br />S~lpCl'\"lSory fluthol'lt.y over Federal const.ruct.ioll pI.lns and speciflc:1-
<br />
<br />t1.OIlS.. The Iv(whoe case. Hot only added to this the l10ltling that. the
<br />
<br />du'ect!on to the S"cretary of the IlIterior, as spelled out in the Rec-
<br />
<br />lamatIOn Act of ID02, to comply with such laws is not broad enOlJO'h
<br />
<br />t.o allow t.he St:ites to ad,1 cOl~dit:ions to their \)ennits orlieenses whi~h
<br />
<br />run cont.rary to othe,r ,pl'OVISlOllS of Federal a.w-~n the illshlnt C:lse,
<br />
<br />t.he excess laud prOVISIOns of t.he Fcde.ral reclamnhon l:1ws-but. IT:lye
<br />
<br />us this aflil'lllative statement of its construction of the section in wltich
<br />
<br />t.he phrase in qnestion ocenrs:
<br />
<br />As we read section S, it lDPtp!y requires the United Stntes to comply with
<br />StntC' Inw wlLcn, in thc construction nnd operation of II reclamntioD project, it
<br />bCCOl.lle.c; neCCi':snry for it to ncqllire wnter rights or ,"ested interests therein.
<br />nut the aCCJ.lIi~ition of water rights must not be confused ".ith tile operation
<br />of Foderal prO.l('Ct~. As the Court snid in Ncbrasl.a \.. WYOlllil19 .. .. .: "We do
<br />not ..c;1U:~g~,<::t thnt where Congress hns provicled n system of regnlntlon for Ferlcrnl
<br />proJect"'! It IlIUF:t ~ive wny before nn inconsistent Stnte- :::r8telll." .. . .. '\\'e read
<br />nothing in ~eetion 8 that compels Ihe United States to t1eH,"er wnter on condi-
<br />tions impilsecl by the Stnte.m
<br />
<br />Tho meaning of a congressional aut.horization 01' direction to con-
<br />
<br />struct a project seems also to be fI. suLject of mi.sundrl"standing. In
<br />
<br />the fi~'st place) ;\fr, Morton equates t.wo t.hings-anthorization and
<br />
<br />dll'ectlOn-wlllch may. be ,:ery ,hfferent. In the second place, he
<br />
<br />!,Uempts to tnrn what IS baSIcally a problem of statntory construction
<br />
<br />IIlto " const.ltnt.lOnal problem, It mav be atlmitto(l t.hat it. wOllld
<br />
<br />bo ill~~llgTII.OIlS for men in Conp:rf'ss t.o iilcllldc IHlIt.u:111y contr:ldictory
<br />
<br />]>1'0\. [SI~J11~ .1Il all act., ,hut tllC I'eco'nci.l ial.ioTl () f sueh pr()\' isiolls or I he
<br />
<br />determlll:ttlOn of whIch ~ha!l 1,,'e\'a',1 over the other hardly rises to
<br />
<br />t.he dlglllty of an exerClse In const.lt.utlOnal law, It ,,'ould clearly
<br />
<br />not be unreasonable for no court which fonnd itself faced with a.
<br />
<br />direction or even an authorizat.ion to construct and a conflictinO'
<br />
<br />direction to proceed in compliance with State laws which woul~
<br />
<br />,renne}" the fil'~~ direction or authorization nu~atory to hold thnt it was
<br />
<br />not Congrc.?s I,atent to f,:ustra!" the former by insistin~ on t.he latter
<br />
<br />and to fortify tis conclUSIOn With a reference to the supremacy clause
<br />
<br />of. the ConstItution. Such is, after all, a permissible readinrr of the
<br />
<br />Fu'st Iowa case,'" But this is n fa.r cry from saying that, if C'ongress
<br />
<br />Ul Supra, DoteR 91, 126,
<br />111 Su.prA. note Dl, at 29 t.
<br />lA Su.pra. note 16.
<br />
<br />..
<br />,
<br />
|