The people's voice., 1958-10-24

manytlmes passed legislation on the
| Central Valley Project, once re-
authorizing it and other times add
| ing units to it, as well as appropriat-
ing money for it, each time invoking
Section 5.
This rules out any possibility that
Section 8 was established as ruling
over Section under application of
state law. "That possibility is fore
closed" by the legislative record E.. i.
'and constitutes ratification of ad-
ministrative construction and approx
al of the contracts"
! "Also beyond challenge is the pow
er of the federal government to i'm
pose reasonable conditions on the
use of federal funds, federal prop
erty and federal privileges con-
versely, a state cannot compel use
of federal property on terms other
than those prescribed or authorized
by Congress. Quoting a 1912 de-
cision, the court here stated that, "it
is hardly lack of due process for the
government to regulate what it sub
sidizes."
The decision went on to state that,
GAS to the claim of discrimination in
the 160-acre limitation, we believe
that it overlooks the purpose for
which the project was designed. The
project was designed to benefit peo-
pie, not land. 1t is reasonable classifi-
cation to limit the amount of project
water available to each individual in
order that benefits may be distributed
in accordance with the greatest good
to the greatest number of individuals. |
"Any suggestion that the Congress
might become arbitrary in the final
accounting, or trample upon the |
rights of appellees is highly improb-
able 1t would be a physical i'm
possibility to withdraw the facilities,
and as for the possibility of discrimi-
nations in the administration of these
facilities, it seems far-fetched to fore
see the federal government turning
its back upon a people who had been
benefited by it and allowing their
lands to revert to desert. The prospect
is too improbable to figure in our
decision"
THE FIGHT CONTINUES
Big interests and their spokesmen
in Congress, coupled with the supine
of the Bureau and Depart
ment of Agriculture do not leave any
room for assuming that the campaign
is over to use state governments as a
vehicle to seize federal constitutional
rights to water and land on which
water is used.
The Departments of Agriculture
and Interior were so misguided as to
allow themselves to be sucked into
/ situation in Utah involving the
lights of that state to allow water '
lights to private persons in National
Forests and Taylor Grazing Districts t
n the Green River Basin.
A decision in early 1857, by Fed c
raj District Judge A. Sherman Chris /
ensen, Salt Lake City, remanded to
he state courts jurisdiction of a suit t
which sought to give Utah the right i
o allocate these water rights. The v
uit was brought under the dubious l
CSio VI lilC AhCOdI elu y
0 a Department of Justice Appropria- il
ions bill in 1852, which made such
uits over adjudication of water rights 1
ossible, with the U. S. as defendant.
Christensen's decision is not ap- 0
ealable because the federal govern b
lent did not fight the suit, and both t
.griculture and Interior have gone v
} the state to acquire rights the s.
ederal government already owns.
he only way this dangerous situa- n
on can be resolved is by the gov Il
bringing suit in federal court h
} test Christensen's decision. In the d
leantime, Utah's state engineer can W
pprove water filings by private per- t.
)ns in federally held land in Utah, e.
nd the principle can be used to f,
pply to millions of acres of public N
md throughout the West, with grave N
lreat to national forests, recreation Ia
cres, fish and wildlife refugees and p
over generation. le
Because of this lack of policy in CT
le Interior Department the R11rea1 n,