Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138428
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:32:40+00:00

Document:
46 States is as much a national policy as the preservation of rivers and harbors for the benefit of navigation. Moreover, while the validity of the Reclamation Act was not in issue in the 1907 case of Kansas v. Colorado, the United States Supreme Court made this comment respecting the basis upon which the program rests:186 As to those lands within the limits of the States, at least of the Western States, the National Government is the most considerable owner and has power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting its property. Another feature of reclamation legislation merits notice here. Section 7 of the 1902 Reclamation Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to purchase or condemn any rights necessary to the carrying out of the Act.187 By Section 8, it is provided:188 That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irri- gation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions 188 206 U. S. 46, 92 (1907). Cf. Eenkel v. United States, 237 U. S. 43, 49 (1915). And see Swigart v. Baker, 229 U. S. 187, 197 (1913), where the objectives of the Reclamation Act were reviewed in detail. Furthermore, it may be noted that in the course of litigation over waters of the Colorado River, the Supreme Court has referred to reclamation legis- lation as an exercise of federal authority under the Property Clause. In Arizona v. California, the Court held the Boulder Canyon Project Act to be a constitutional exercise of commerce power, declining to rule whether con- struction of the dam might have been supported under federal authority to irrigate public lands. 283 U. S. 423, 457 (1931). But in United States v. Arizona, while denying that a 1904 statute authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to divert waters from the Colorado River for irrigating lands in certain Indian reservations could be considered "the consent of Congress" necessary under the 1899 River and Harbor Act before placing obstructions affecting navigable capacity, the Court expressly characterized the former statute as a part of the Reclamation Laws enacted under the proprietary authority. 295 U. S. 174,184-185 (1935). 187 Act of June 17,1902, § 7, 32 Stat. 388, 389, 43 U. S. C. 421. m § 8, 32 Stat. 390, 43 U. S. C. 383, 372.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 8