WSP03718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . filling stage. The Met's water was exempted from this curtailment. Angered by the curtailment, the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District unsuccessfully sued Secretary Udall (253 LSupp. 909 (1966)). The Court decided that the sovereign had not consented to be sued. The Court gratuitously added (at p. 912) that the District's water contract does not require the delivery to the plaintiff of any specific quantity of water, but only of so much water as may be 'reasonably required and beneficially used' by the plaintiff. Previously, in its 1963 opinion, the u.S. Supreme court had left the Secretary of the Interior broad discretion as to how to allocate water in times of shortage (see 373 u.S. 546, at 593-4). The regulations now in effect (Part 417, Code of Federal Regulations, "Procedural Methods for Implementing Colorado River Water Conservation Measures With Lower Basin Contractors and Others") evolved from ones adopted in 1964 (Fed. Reg. 13, 604-13. 606) in the wake of the Arizona v. California opinion. An amendment specifying water conservation practices, and stating that water deliveries are not to exceed that "reasonably required for beneficial use", was added in 1969. Revisions covering Indian reservations and federal establishments were adopted in 1972 (37 Fed. Reg. 18076). The current regulations dating from 1964 call for the Regional Director or his designee to consult with each contractor before the end of the calendar year to estimate the water requirements for the following year. The Regional Director's obj ective is to make "annual recommendations relating to water conservation measures and operating practices in the diversion, delivery, distribution and use of Colorado River water " (Section 417.2.) Various criteria are given in the regulations to aid the Regional Director. The contractor is given written notice of the recommendations and determinations. The contractor then has thirty days within which to comment. Provision is made for the contractor to seek modification of the recommendations and determinations on the basis of changed conditions, emergencies or hardships. (Section 417.4.) Similar provisions are provided with respect to Indian Reservations. (Section 417.5.) Significantly, the current regulations provide (at Section 417.1) that the Regional Director, at his discretion, can exempt small contractors and "contractors for municipal and industrial water" from the procedures. That has been the practice. The 1964 regulations, as amended, have had modest effect. They have memorialized the Bureau's entry into the regulatory 68RO - 5 -