Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/283/423/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:07:42+00:00

Document:
Argued: March 9, 10, 1931.
The United States may perform its functions without conforming to the police regulations of a state. Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 41 S. Ct. 16, 65 L. Ed. 126; Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96, 49 S. Ct. 38, 73 L. Ed. 200. If Congress has power to authorize the construction of the dam and reservoir, Wilbur is under no obligation to submit the plans and specifications to the state engineer for approval. 1 And the federal government has the power to create this obstruction in the river for the purpose of improving navigation if the Colorado river is navigable. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 430, 15 L. Ed. 435; South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4, 11, 23 L. Ed. 782; Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S. 269, 17 S. Ct. 578, 41 L. Ed. 996; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 64, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063; Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251, 258, 269, 35 S. Ct. 551, 59 L. Ed. 939. Arizona contends both that the river is not navigable, and that it was not the purpose of Congress to improve navigation.
The bill alleges that 'the river has never been, and is not now, a navigable river.' The argument is that the question whether a stream is navigable is oe of fact; and that hence the motion to dismiss admits the allegation that the river is not navigable. It is true that whether a stream is navigable in law depends upon whether it is navigable in fact, United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 51 Sup. Ct. 438, 75 L. Ed. 844; 2 and that a motion to dismiss, like a demurrer, admits every well-pleaded allegation of fact, Payne v. Central Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 228, 232, 41 S. Ct. 314, 65 L. Ed. 598. But a court may take judicial notice that a river within its jurisdiction is navigable. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 697, 19 S. Ct. 770, 43 L. Ed. 1136; Wear v. Kansas, 245 U. S. 154, 158, 38 S. Ct. 55, 62 L. Ed. 214. We knew judicially, from the evidence of history, that a large part of the Colorado river south of Black Canyon was formerly navigable, 3 and that the main obstacles to navigation have been the accumulations of silt coming from the upper reaches of the river system, and the irregularity in the flow due to periods of low water. 4 Commercial disuse resulting from changed geographical conditions, and a congressional failure to deal with them, does not amount to an abandonment of a navigable river or prohibit future exertion of federal control. Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 118, 124, 41 S. Ct. 409, 65 L. Ed. 847. We know from the reports of the committees of the Congress which recommended the Boulder Canyon project that, in the opinion of the government engineers, the silt will be arrested by the dam; that, through use of the stored water, irregularity in its flow below Black Canyon can be largely overcome; and that navigation for considerable distances both above and below the dam will become feasible. 5 Compare St. Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Board of Water Commissioners of City of St. Paul, 168 U. S. 349, 359, 18 S. Ct. 157, 42 L. Ed. 497; United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 326, 37 S. Ct. 380, 61 L. Ed. 746.
Into the motives which induced members of Congress to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act, this court may not inquire. McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 53-59, 24 S. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Weber v. Freed, 239 U. S. 325, 329, 330, 36 S. Ct. 131, 60 L. Ed. 308, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 317; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 358, 359, 37 S. Ct. 298, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 93, 94, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493; Dakota Central Telephone v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 187, 39 S. Ct. 507, 63 L. Ed. 910, 4 A. L. R. 1623; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 161, 40 S. Ct. 106, 64 L. Ed. 194; Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U. S. 180, 210, 41 S. Ct. 243, 65 L. Ed. 577. 7 The act declares that the authority to construct the dam and reservoir is conerre d, among other things, for the purpose of 'improving navigation and regulating the flow of the Colorado River.' As the river is navigable and the means which the act provides are not unrelated to the control of navigation, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co., 269 U. S. 411, 419, 46 S. Ct. 144, 70 L. Ed. 339, the erection and maintenance of such dam and reservoir are clearly within the powers conferred upon Congress. Whether the particular structures proposed are reasonably necessary, is not for this court to determine. Compare Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 712-714, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905; Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 340, 29 S. Ct. 671, 53 L. Ed. 1013; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 65, 72, 73, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063; Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545, 559, 44 S. Ct. 628, 68 L. Ed. 1174. And the fact that purposes other than navigation will also be served could not invalidate the exercise of the authority conferred, even if those other purposes would not alone have justified an exercise of Congressional power. Compare Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 548, 19 L. Ed. 482; Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254. 275, 12 S. Ct. 173, 35 L. Ed. 1004; In re Kolock, 165 U. S. 526, 536, 17 S. Ct. 444, 41 L. Ed. 813; Weber v. Freed, supra; United States v. Doremus, supra.
Since the grant of authority to build the dam and reservoir is valid as an exercise of the Constitutional power to improve navigation, we have no occasion to decide whether the utho rity to construct the dam and reservoir might not also have been constitutionally conferred for the specified purpose of irrigating public lands of the United States. 8 Compare United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703, 19 S. Ct. 770, 43 L. Ed. 1136; United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264, 47 S. Ct. 597, 71 L. Ed. 1040. Or for the specified purpose of regulating the flow and preventing floods in this interstate river. 9 Or as a means of conserving and apportioning its waters among the states equitably entitled thereto. Or for purpose of performing international obligations. 10 Compare Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984.
Second. The further claim is that the mere existence of the act will invade quasi sovereign rights of Arizona by preventing the state from exercising its right to prohibit or permit under its own laws the appropriation of unappropriated waters flowing within or on its borders. The opportunity and need for further appropriations are fully set forth in the bill. Arizona is arid, and irrigation is necessary for cultivation of additional land. The future growth and welfare of the state are largely dependent upon such reclamation. It is alleged that there are within Arizona 2,000,000 acres not now irrigated which are susceptible of irrigation by further appropriations from the Colorado river. 11 To appropriate water means to take and divert a specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the state where such water is found, and, by so doing, to acquire under such laws, a vested right to take and divert from the same source, and to use and consume the same quantity of water annually forever, subject only to the right of prior appropriations. Under the law of Arizona, the perfected vested right to appropriate water flowing within the state cannot be acquired without the performance of physical acts through which the water is and will in fact be diverted to beneficial use. Topographical conditions make it necessary that land in the state be irrigated in large projects. The Colorado river flows, both on the boundary between Arizona and Nevada, and in Arizona alone, through an almost continuous series of deep canyons, the walls of which rise in Arizona to a height varying from a few hundred to more than 5,000 feet. The cost of installing the dams, reservoirs, canals, and distribution works required to effect any diversion will be very heavy; and financing on a large scale is indispensible. Such financing will be impossible unless it clearly appears that, at or prior to the time of constructing such works, vested rights to the permanent use of the water will be acquired.
The alleged interference with the right of the state to control additional appropriations is based upon the following facts; The average annual flow of the Colorado river system, including the tributaries, is 18,000,000 acre-feet. 12 Only 9,000,000 acre-feet have been appropriated by Arizona and the defendant states. Of this 3,500,000 acre-feet have been appropriated in Arizona under its laws, and the remaining 5,500,000 acre-feet by the other states. The 9,000,000 acre-feet unappropriated are now subject to appropriation in Arizona under its laws. It is alleged that there are numerous sites suitable for the construction, maintenance, and operation of dams and reservoirs required for the irrigation of land in Arizona; and that actual projects have been planned for the irrigation of 1,000,000 acres, including 100,000 acres owned by the state. For this purpose 4,500,000 acre-feet annually will be additionally required. Permits to appropriate this water have been granted by the state; and definite plans to carry out projects for the building of dams on that part of the river flowing in or on the borders of Arizona have been approved by the state engineer. It is stated that, but for the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, construction work would long since have commenced.
It is conceded that the continued use of the 3,500,000 acre-feet of water already appropriated in Arizona is not now threatened. And there is no allegation that at the present time the enjoyment of these rights is being interfered with in any way. The claim strenuously urged is that the existence of the act, and the threatened exercise of the authority to use the stored water pursuant to its terms, will prevent Arizona from exercising its right to control the making of further appropriations. It is argued that such needed additional appropriations will be prevented because Wilbur proposes to store the entire unappropriated flow of the main stream of the Colorado river at the dam; that Arizona, and those claiming under it, will not be permitted to take any water from the reservoir except upon agreeing that the use shall be subject to the compact; that under the terms of the compact they will not be entitled to appropriate anywate r in excess of that to which there are now perfected rights in Arizona; 13 and that, in order irrigate land in Arizona, it is frequently necessary to utilize rights of way over lands of the United States, and, since the act provides that all such rights of way or other privileges to be granted by the United States shall be upon the express condition and with the express covenant that they shall be subject to the compact, the act in effect prevents Arizona and those claiming under it from acquiring such rights.
This contention cannot prevail because it is based, not on any actual or threatened impairment of Arizona's rights, but upon assumped potential invasions. The act does not purport to affect and legal right of the state, or to limit in any way the exercise of its legal right to appropriate any of the unappropriated 9,000,000 acre-feet which may flow within or on its borders. On the contrary, section 18 (43 USCA § 617q) specifically declares that nothing therein 'shall be construed as interfering with such rights as the States now have either to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies and enact such laws as they may deem necessary with respect to the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders, except as modified' by interstate agreement. As Arizona has made no such agreement, the act leaves its legal rights unimpaired. There is no allegation of definite physical acts by which Wilbur is interfering, or will interfere, with the exercise by Arizona of its right to make further appropriations by means of diversions above the dam or with the enjoyment of water so appropriated. 14 Nor any specific allegation of physical acts impeding the exercise of its right to make future appropriations by means of diversions below the dam, or limiting the enjoyment of rights so acquired, unless it be by preventing an adequate quantity of water from flowing in the river at any necessary point of diversion.
When the bill was filed, the construction of the dam and reservoir had not been commenced. Years must elapse before the project is completed. If by operations at the dam any then perfected right of Arizona, or of those claiming under it, should hereafter be interfered with, appropriate remedies will be available. Compare Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 117, 27 S. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956. The bill alleges, that plans have been drawn and permits granted for the taking of additional water in Arizona pursuant to its laws. But Wilbur threatens no physical interference with these projects; and the act interposes no legal inhibitions on their execution. 15 There is no occasion for determining now Arizona's rights to interstate or local waters which have not yet been, and which may never be, appropriated. New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U. S. 328, 338, 46 S. Ct. 122, 70 L. Ed. 289. This court cannot issue declaratory decrees. Compare Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U. S. 158, 162, 42 S. Ct. 261, 66 L. Ed. 531; Liberty Warehouse v. Grannis, 273 U. S. 70, 74, 47 S. Ct. 282, 71 L. Ed. 541; Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 277 U. S. 274, 289, 290, 48 S. Ct. 507, 72 L. Ed. 880. Arizona has, of course, no constitutional right to use, in aid of appropriation, any land of the United States, and it cannot complain of the provision conditioning the use of such public land. Compare Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 403-405, 37 S. Ct. 387, 61 L. Ed. 791.
The Colorado river and its tributaries have frequently been the subject of treaties between the United States and Mexico. See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848, art. VII, in Malloy, United States Treaties, vol. i, pp. 1107, 1111 ( 9 Stat. 928); Gadsden Treaty, December 30, 1853, art. IV, Id., pp. 1121, 1123 ( 10 stat. 1034); Boundary Convention of March 1, 1889, arts. I, V, Id., pp. 1167-92. Compare the 1912 proposals reported in Hearings Before the House Committee on the Irrigation of Arid Lands, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., July 9-14, 1919, Append., pp. 323-26. As to Rio Grande river, see Convention of May 21, 1906, Treaty Series No. 455; 21 Opp. Atty. Gen. 274, 282, 518; Sen. Doc. No. 154, 57th Cong., 2d Sess., February 14, 1903. For the international aspects of the proposed Colorado river development, see Hearings Before the House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., July 9-14, 1919, Append., pp. 323-48; Colorado River Compact, H. R. Doc. No. 605, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., March 2, 1923, pp. 5-6; Report of the All-American Canal Board, July 22, 1919, pp. 14-15; Report of International Water Commission, supra note 8, pp. 17-23, 85-283.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 617
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.