WSP00671 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(JOD)?:: .) . \1 rep,.. .Ient contract varying from the terms of Secti~, ,1dl ~ut ,n general keeping with the objectives of the Act, sub- Ject to approval by the Congress. It i~ not believed possible to properly construe Section 9(e) without reference to Section 7. This is believed subject to ready demonstration, inasmuch as Section 7(b) contains a power which is absolutely essential in order that there ma.y b? an ,allocation of costs among the various project oblect,ves. This is the sole provision of the Act which could p05Si~ly supply that power. Section 7{bJ in terms applies to a prole~t in the status of the Central Valley Project. This subsection no less than five times contains express refer- ence to lIa repayment contract," "and authorizes allocation of costs respecting existing or future projeds concerning which "a repayment contract" has not been executed, and continues "and a repayment contract may be negotiated, in the discretion of the Secretary (I) pursuant to the au- thorHy of subsection tal of this section, or (2) in eccord- 8nce, as near as may be, with the provisions in subsection 9(dj or 9(e) of this Act." ~ ., pr,.. Js, to follow State law in that regard, and" iex_ pressly provides that all water rights acquired under such projects .hall be appurtenant to the land irrigated. Current State and Federal law, as applied to the present situation, requires that rights to the use of water for the project shall be acquired pursuant to State low, and further requires that the users of the water shall acquire the beneficial title ta the use of the water, and the United States itself acquires no title thereto, but holds any rights it may acquire for such purposes in trust for the water users, who as beneficiaries of the trust when water is applied to beneficial use, acquire full title thereto with priority relating back to the dates of the applications made therefor, which rights are appurtenant to the land irrigated. It appears too clear for argument that here are pre- sented two alternatives and two only. A repayment con. tract may be executed either in accordance with Section 7(a) or in accordance lias near as may be" with the pro.- visions of Sections 9(d) or 9(e). It appears reasonable to construe this language as authorizing resort to a water delivery contract under Section 9(e) only in the event it is impracticable for sound reasons to execute a repayment contract. such 9(e) contract to remain in effect until such time as it m.ay be possible to execute a repayment contract as required by Federal law. The language "as near as may be" imports a degree of flexibility in the following refer- ence to "Section 9(d) or 9(eJ of this Act," If and when permits are issued pursuant to applications held by the United States for purposes of the praject, such permits should contain condi- tions requiring the United States to conform to the foregoing principles and assuring the praject ben.... ficiaries of the advantages thereof. , If the present contract were unconditionally held to be valid it is believed there would result a conflict of Federal and State authority which would be adverse to the public interest. . Under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States construing repayment contracts in accordance with the traditional concept thereof, and as now embodied in Section 9(d) of the Reclamation Project Act, there is ample scope for free application of State law as specifically re- quired in regard to irrigation by Section 8 of the original Reclamation Act of June J 7, 1902, which section requires the Secretary of the Interior, in developing reclamation 10 . It w.ould seem to folio:" that the, Water Project Authority In acting on the resolution of March 27, 195 I, authorizing the Attorney General to represent it in the Ivanhoe case. in "agreeing" that the attorneys of the staff of the State Engineer should express to the court 11th air views" on be. half of the Authority anticipated that those views might differ from the views of the Attorney General. If this were not true, no purpose would be served by the attorneys for the State Engineer presenting to the court their views. Also a close analysis of the resolution of the Authority shows that the Authority was concerned with the contention that validation of the contract might impair State powers over the subject matter of the contract - water. No refer- ence was. however. made respecting contentions of in- validity. I think the reason for this contrast is clear. The Authority realized that validation of the contract might impair such powers - invalidation should pose no such threat. In the resolution nothing more is stated concerning validity or invalidity, but in the prayer of the Authority in the answer it is expressly stated that "the Authority is not taking any position on the validity of the contract," The resolution itself does not so state. Thus, between the J) ,I , This construction would permit execution of a contract under Section 91ei providing for water delivery as a temporary expedient until a repay- ment' contract could be executed either under Sec- tion 71a) or 9(d). In either event the resulting con- tract would consist in a repayment contract as required by Federal law. Under this construction there waul" be no necessary conflict with State law.