Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'0090 <br /> <br />The Court has reached similar conclusions in cases <br />involving the reclamation laws. 53/ Despite the direction of S 8 <br />of the 1902 Reclamation Act that~he Secretary of -the Interior <br />"proceed in conformity" with applicable state laws (see pp. 22-23 <br />supra), the Court has held that state law or permit requirements <br />are preempted if they are inconsistent with other, more specific <br />provisions of the Act or of the legislation authorizing the <br />project. In Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U.S. <br />275 (1958), the Court reversed the refusal of the california <br />Supreme Court to confirm certain reclamation contracts that <br />contained clauses implementing S 5 of the Reclamation Act of <br />1902 and S 9 of the Reclamation project Act of 1939 (see p. 23 <br />supra) because limitations imposed by those sections were inconsistent <br />with California law. The California Court had held that S 8 <br />required that "whenever there is a conflict between the Federal <br />Reclamation laws and the laws of the State, the law of California <br />must prevail." 357 U.S. at 287. The United States Supreme <br />Court held that the general savings provision of S 8 could not <br />override the mandatory, specific provisions of S 5 and S 9. Id. <br />at 292. 2i/ The Court reaffirmed this view ofS 8 in City of-- <br />Fresno v. California, 372 U.S. 627 (1963), in which the <br />Court held that S 8 does not require the Secretary of the <br />Interior to ignore the explicit preference established by <br />S 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939 for irrigation over <br />domestic and municipal uses of reclamation water (see p. 23 <br />supra): and in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546-rI963), <br />in which the Court concluded that state law could not interfere <br />with the power of the Secretary of the Interior, under the <br />Boulder Canyon project Act, supra n.33, to determine with <br />whom and on what terms water contracts would be made. <br /> <br />:'. <br /> <br />Language used by the Supreme Court in Ivanhoe, Fresno <br />and Arizona suggested that the scope of S 8 was extremely <br /> <br />53/ Most large federal reclamation projects are authorized by <br />specific legislation and appropriations, but incorporate by <br />reference the provisions of the federal "reclamation laws," <br />including, most importantly, the 1902 Act. See, e.g., <br />California v. United States, supra, 438 U.S.-at 65l-n.6. <br /> <br />54/ The Court also rejected a constitutional challenge to the <br />reclamation projects in question, finding that "[t]here can be <br />no doubt of the Federal Government's general authority to establish <br />and execute" the projects under the General Welfare Clause and <br />property Clauses of the Constitution. 357 U.S. at 294-95. Those <br />clauses give the federal government the power "to impose reason- <br />able conditions on the use of federal funds, federal property, and <br />federal privileges," and prohibit the states from .compel[ling] <br />uses of federal property on terms other than those prescribed or <br />authorized by Congress." Id. at 295. <br /> <br />- 34 <br />