Opinion ID: 454898
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Law Constraining Federal Defendants

Text: 20 Contrary to federal defendants' contentions, the federal government must acquire water rights in accordance with state law. In California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 664, 668, 673, 678-79, 98 S.Ct. 2985, 2995, 2997, 2999, 3002-03, 57 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1978), the United States Supreme Court clearly stated that federal reclamation projects must comply with state water laws except where such laws are inconsistent with congressional directives: 21 The United States suggests that, even if the Congress of 1902 intended the Secretary of the Interior to comply with state law, more recent legislative enactments have subjected reclamation projects to a variety of federal policies that leave no room for state controls on the operation of a project or on the choice of uses it will serve. ... While later Congresses have indeed issued new directives to the Secretary, they have consistently reaffirmed that the Secretary should follow state law in all respects not directly inconsistent with these directives. 22 Id. at 677-78, 98 S.Ct. at 3002-03. 23 Moreover, when Congress reauthorized the CVP in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, Pub.L. No. 75-392, Sec. 2, 50 Stat. 844, 850, Congress provided that the provisions of the reclamation law govern that project. 10 And, the reclamation law includes the Reclamation Act of 1902, which provides at section 8: 24 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 irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of [this Act], shall proceed in conformity with such laws.... 25 Reclamation Act of 1902, ch. 1093, Sec. 8, 32 Stat. 390 (codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 383 (1982)). 26 Federal defendants argue that they cannot be sued because they need not comply with California water law. They contend that section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, and Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963), authorize their acquisition of water rights for the CVP by seizure or otherwise, even where state law would bar the acquisition. We disagree with this contention. 27 Section 2 of the 1937 Act does not authorize federal preemption of state law. Section 2 authorizes the Secretary to acquire by proceedings in eminent domain, or otherwise, all lands, rights-of-way, water rights, and other property necessary for [CVP] purposes. 50 Stat. at 850. Although in isolation this clause may appear to support defendants' contention, a reading of section 2 in the context of the remainder of the reclamation law leads us to the opposite conclusion. 28 Section 7 of the 1902 Act provides authority similar to that of section 2 of the 1937 Act: [T]he Secretary of the Interior is ... authorized to acquire [any rights or property] by purchase or by condemnation under judicial process. 32 Stat. at 390. In California v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the 1902 Act, including section 7, as requiring federal defendants to comply with state law in appropriating, purchasing, or condemning water rights. 438 U.S. at 665, 98 S.Ct. at 2996. Although section 2 includes the word otherwise in its reference to acquisitions, which section 7 does not, we find no evidence that otherwise includes methods in contravention of state law, or that Congress, when it passed the 1937 Act, intended that Act to preempt state law. 29 Forty-one years after Congress passed the 1937 Act, the Supreme Court clearly stated: 30 The history of the relationship between the Federal Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water law by Congress. 31 California v. United States, 438 U.S. at 653, 98 S.Ct. at 2990 (emphasis added). Surely the Court was aware of the 1937 Act, as well as the 1902 Act, when it referred to the historic congressional deference to state water law. Because the two statutes are clearly comparable, we are guided by the Court's interpretation of section 7 of the 1902 Act and interpret section 2 of the 1937 Act to require the federal defendants in the instant case to comply with state law both in their operation of the CVP and in their acquisition of water rights for the project. 32