My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.' - <br /> <br />:.--- <br /> <br />addition, it has the first right to use any secondary energy produced <br /> <br />from the dam. "General Regulations for Generation and Sale of Power in <br /> <br />Accordance with the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act," May 20, <br /> <br />1941, Secretary of the Interior, in Wilbur & Ely, ~~, pp. A279- <br />A286. <br /> <br />42. 48 F.R. 20872, May 9, 1%3. <br /> <br />43. Sections 5 and H(b) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act provide that the <br /> <br />Secretary may contract for sale of stored waters from the Colorado. 43 <br /> <br />U.s.C. Sec. 6Ud, 6i7g(b). Congress delegated "full power to control, <br /> <br />manage, and operate the government's Colorado River works and to make <br /> <br />contracts for the sale and delivery of water" to the Secretary of the <br /> <br />Interior in the BOulder Canyon Project Act, Arizona v. California, 373 <br /> <br />U.S. 546, (1963). To the extent that the Secretary violates a contract <br /> <br />by use of water for power generation, the deprived party should be able <br /> <br />to assert a breach of contract claim against the United States under the <br /> <br /> <br />Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1340(a)(2). That Congress intended such <br /> <br /> <br />action by the United States to be compensable in damages is shown by the <br /> <br /> <br />fact that reclamation law requires that water rights needed for projects <br /> <br />must be condemned. See United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 <br /> <br />U.S. 725 (1950). There may be problems under Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 1 <br /> <br />of the Constitution which prohibits impairment of the obligation of <br /> <br />contracts if the United States abrogated existing contractual <br /> <br />arrangements. <br /> <br />44. See generally Harold Ranquist, "The Winters I>octrine and How it Grew: <br /> <br />- 39 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.