Opinion ID: 343208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of the Secretary's Discretion

Text: 34 It is apparent that Congress has imposed some restrictions on the Secretary's discretion to market hydroelectric power. Section 7 of CRSP requires that plants be operated with other federal power plants to produce the greatest practicable amount of power . . . that can be sold at firm power . . . rates. 30 Section 7 also requires the Secretary to observe the compacts and statutes comprising the law of the Colorado River. Further, the use of water for generating hydroelectric power shall (not) preclude or impair the appropriation of water for domestic or agricultural purposes pursuant to applicable State law. In addition, Section 485h(c) of the Reclamation Project Act sets a minimum rate and defines a class of preference customers who have priority in purchasing power. Arizona Power Pooling Association v. Morton, 527 F.2d 721, 726-28 (9th Cir. 1975). 35 Had Arizona Power alleged that the Secretary violated any of these restrictions, we would have jurisdiction to review his action. See Arizona Power Pooling Association v. Morton, supra, 527 F.2d at 726-28. But Arizona Power makes no such allegation. 31 36 Within the restrictions just outlined, it appears that the Secretary has considerable discretion. For example, the Supreme Court has held that rates for the sale of power above a defined minimum (see 43 U.S.C. § 485h(c)) are to be set in the Secretary's judgment and contracts for sale may be made for any term less than 40 years. City of Fresno v. California, 372 U.S. 627, 631-32, 83 S.Ct. 996, 10 L.Ed.2d 28 (1963). Also, although it is true that Section 485h(c) forbids the Secretary from making any contract for the sale of power that would in (his) judgment . . . impair the efficiency of the project for irrigation purposes, id. at 630, 83 S.Ct. at 998, we have held that this grant of discretion is broad enough to permit the Secretary to bypass the preference customer priority when sales to preference customers would impair project efficiency. Arizona Power Pooling Association v. Morton, supra, 527 F.2d at 727. Further, the Supreme Court has also said that the general authority to make contracts normally includes the power to choose with whom . . . the contracts will be made. Arizona v. California, supra, 373 U.S. at 580, 83 S.Ct. at 1487. 32 37 Unless Arizona Power can establish its contention that Congress has prohibited the Secretary from taking a customer's location into account in marketing CRSP power, it would appear in light of his broad discretion that the Secretary may adopt whatever geographic preference he desires and that we have no jurisdiction to review his action.