Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138431
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:57:35+00:00

Document:
49 confronted in Ickes v. Fox with a question whether a suit against the Secretary of the Interior to protect vested rights to the use of water was a suit against the United States.197 The Court held that the United States was not an indispensable party and declared that suit maintainable as an action against a named official challenging his authority to perform the act against which the complaint was made. In a later decision, however, the Court noted that the "ground for decision in Ickes v. Fox is not altogether clear."198 In addition to the foregoing, other constitutional considera- tions have been involved in litigation concerning federal irri- gation undertakings. For example, it has been held that dis- cretion of the Secretary of the Interior may be made conclu- sive as to the necessity for taking land for such a project.199 So also is his decision on the necessity for drainage and the meth- ods of conducting the work.200 The federal right of eminent domain may be exercised to obtain any rights or interests in property necessary to carry out an irrigation project.201 Lands 197 300 U. S. 82, 96-S7 (1937). m Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U. S. 682, 702, n. 26 (1949). The note continues: "The argument was made in that case that the Secre- tary of the Interior had no statutory power to overrule a determination of the rights of the plaintiffs made by his predecessor in office. 300 U. S. at 86. The tortious injury to the plaintiffs was also argued, in reliance on Goltra v. Weeks, as a basis for avoiding the sovereign's immunity. The court appears to have relied on both grounds without indicating which was controlling. It said: 'The suits * * * are brought to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing an order, the wrongful effect of which will be to deprive respondents of vested property rights not only acquired under Congressional acts, state laws, and government contracts, but settled and determined by his predecessors in office.1 (Emphasis added). Id. at 96-97. In support of the conclusion that the suit could be maintained, the Court relied first on Nolle v. Union Logging R. Co., 147 U. S. 165 (1893), a decision resting entirely on the officer's lack of statutory power to over- rule the decision of his predecessor." (Italics and parenthetical addition are the Court's.) 199 United States v. Bwrley, 172 Fed. 615, 616 (C. C. D. Idaho 1909), af- firmed, 179 Fed. 1 (C. A. 9,1910). ™ United States v. Ide, 277 Fed. 373, 382 (C. A. 8, 1921), affirmed, 263 U. S. 497 (1924). See also Yuma County Water Users' Assoc. v. Schlecht, 262 U. 8.138,145(1923). ^Henkel v. United States, 237 U. S. 43, 50 (1915).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.