works on a project" until after ,submission of prescribed
findings and report.8"
On the other hand, general authority is provided for retain
discretionary modifications in the case of, Army projects. For
example, the Chief of Engineers is authorized to modify the
plan for any authorized dam or other works to make it smaller
than originally planned with a view to completing a useful
improvement within an authorization, provided it will be feas-
ible in the future to enlarge the work to permit fullutilization
of the site for all purposes of conservation such as "flood con-
trol, navigation, reclamation, thedevelopment of hydroelec-
tric power, and the abatement of pollu tion." Like authority
exists for the modification of flood-control project plans so as
to evacuate areas rather than protect them by il~eespr flood
walls.8" Further authority for modification of flood-control
project plans is permitted by a 1937 statute authorizing the
provision of additional storage capacity for domestic water
supply or other conservation storage if the cost of such in-
creased capacity is contributed by local -agencies and they
agree to utilize the same in a manner consistent with federal
uses and purposess."
S Operation and Maintenance of Projects
A number of different and varied statutes deal with the
operation and maintenance of water-resource projects. Here,
the law leaves some important matters uncovered where re-
sponsibility is diyided: Other statutes provide for project op-
eratioq by beneficiaries or other nonfederal entities. Vari,-
tions exist in the matter of fiscal flexibility to meet operational
requirements and emergencies. Some statutes provide for
"Act Of Augut 4, 1939; 19(a), 53 Stt. 17, 11, 43:. 68(a).
Act of August A18941, 19, 5 2, 5- at;L 688, 8: T. 8~. 8mC. 101n.
-Act of June 28, 1938, 52 Stat. 1215, 1216, 3 U. S. 0. 7011.
SAct of June 22, 1986, 5, 49 Stat. 150, 1572, as added by Act of July
19,1937, 1, 50 Stat. 515, 518, 8 U. S. C. 701h.
See also Act of December 22, 1944, 10 58 Stat. 889, 901, authorizing the
Folsom'Reservoir "with such xmodificatfoni thleof 'as in the discretion" 'o
the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers may be "advisabl&"
project operation for purposes in addition to those for which the
project was authorized and constructed. Finally, there is the
difficulty of conflicts among alternative uses of water. These
matters we shall review in the foregoing order.
AoercY RSPONSmTBUTY.---Under existing statutes, the
constructing agency generally operates and maintains the
project. A number of exceptions have been provided, how-
Outstanding in this respect is the 1944 legislative direc-
tion that surplus power generated at reservoir projects under
Army control be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior for
transmission and disposal.8" 'But operation of the generating
facilities continues under the control of the Secretary of the
Army. And the statute does not define the beginning of the
transmission system, operation of which is controlled by the
Secretary of the Interior.
We have already noted that the Secretary of the Interior
has the principal responsibility for marketing of federal power,
power maiketedby the Tennessee Valley Authority being the
main exceptiomi. As earlier outlined, the Secretary's market-
ing responsibilities are discharged through several agencies. In
some instances, such an agency under his control markets power
from a Reclamation project also under his control."
The foregoing 1944 statute provides for still another division
of responsibility in project operation. When the Secretary of
the Armny determines, on recommendation of the Secretary of
the Interior, Athat any dam and reservoir project under the
former's direction may be utilized for irrigation purposes, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate,
and maintain under the provisions of Reclamation Law such
additional works in connection therewith as he may deem
necessary for irrigation purposes.8" Such works may be
undertaken, however, only upon specific authorization by act
Act of December 22, 1944, 5, 58 Stat. 887, 890, 16 U. S. 0. 825s.
SSee supra, p. 800.
SSee supra, n. 248, p. 300.
SAct of December 22,1944, 8, 58 Stat. 887, 891, 48 U. S. 0. 390.
of Congress." Specifically exempted are dam and reservoir
projects previously constructed by the: Army Engineers which
provide conservation storage of water for irrigation purposes.I
One feature of Section 8 is in dispute. As indicated, it pro-
vides for a determination by the Secretary of the Army as to
"any" dam or reservoir project operated under his direction,
and that any irrigation works authorized thereunder are to be
constructed, operated, and maintained by the Secretary of
the Interior, "under the provisions of the Federal reclamation
laws." I The Secretary of the Interior takes the view that
the application of the section is not limited geographically, and
that it was designed to prevent agency duplication in the field
of irrigation.3s The Chief of Engineers, on the other hand,
takes the view that the section is tied,in with Reclamation Law
which applies only in the 17 Western States, and that conse-
quently the section was intended to apply only in those
Section 7 of the 1944 Act vests in the Secretary of the Army
the duty of prescribing regulations for use of storage allocated
to navigation or flood control at all, reservoir projects con-
structed wholly or in part with federal funds provided on the
basis of such purposes."
Other statutes make varying provisions for division, of agen-
cy responsibility with respect to power projects. For example,
the Tennessee Valley Authority Act contemplated that the
President might designate the Secretary of the Army ot the
Secretary of the Interior to construct Norris:Dam.3" But it
directed that control of the completed dam be entrusted to
*H. Doc. No. 255, 81st Cong., 1st sess., pp. XIV-XV (1949).
Id., pp. XIX, XX.
Act of December 22,1944, 1 7, 58 Stat. 887, 890, 33 U. 8. C. 709. With a
specified qualification concerning flood control, this provision does not apply
to TVA. See supra, n. 199, p. 109.
SAct of May 18, 1933, 18, 48 Stat. 58, 67, 16 U. S. C. 831q.
.Similarly, the President is authorized by legislation to desig-
nate any federal or other specified agency to operate and main-
tain certain projects on certain Mexican boundary waters.
The treaty of February 3, 1944 provided that various projects
on the Rio Grande and the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers be con-
structed, operated, and maintained by the International Bound-
ary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.""
In 1944, the Army Engineers were authorized to construct,
for flood control and other purposes, the Folsom Reservoir in
the American River in California.80 In recently directing that
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir be constructed with en-
larged storage capacity, however, Congress provided that the
dam and reservoir be constructed by the Army Engineers and
the powerplant features by the Secretary of the Interior."
Italso stipulated that the dam be transferred to the Bureau
of Reclamation for operation and maintenance in accordance
with Reelsatisn Law.m
In addition to the foregoing provisions, other statutory
arrangements divide operating responsibilities, including pro-
vision for nonfieral participation, as we shall now see.
OP &RATION By NoNFmDIB~u AGENcIES.--Navigation projects
are federally operated by the Army Engineers.*' The same is
trueof floodaco~trol dam and reservoir projects.&" But it is
required by law that maintenance and operation of other flood-
control projects be undertaken by local interests furnishing the
required assurances prerequisite to construction."5 Title is
held by the United States.""
Under the 1902 Reclamation Aet, management and opera-
Act of August 19,985, 8 ((a), 49 Stat. 060, as amended, see 22 U. S. C.
"Treaty of February 3, 1944, Arts. 7, 12, 24, 59 Stat. 1219, 1231, 1240,
1255, Treaty Series 994.
SAct of December 22, 1944 10, 58 Stat 887,901.
m" ACt t October 14, 1949, 2,63 Stat. 852, 853.
SSee supra, pp. 105, 109-112.
*" See supra, pp. 148, 147-148.
Act of June 22, 1936, 3, 49 Stat. 1570, 1571, as amended, 83 U. S. C. 701c.
Act of June 28,1938, i 2, 52 Stat. 1215, as amended, 33 U. S. C. 701c-1.
tion of irrigation works are required to pass to the owners of
the lands irrigated thereby, to be maintained at their expense,
when payments required by the Act have been made for the
major portion of the lands irrigated.8' But title to, and man-
agement and operation of, ther bservoirs and works necessary
for their protection and operation remain in the Government."8
Under a later statute, the Secretary of the Interior has discre-
tionary power to transfer the care, operation, and maintenance
of projects to a legally organized water-users' association or irri-
In still another way, the Secretary of the Interior is author-
ized to permit nonfederal participation in Reclamation project
operation. For in addition to authority to sell electric power,
he is empowered to lease "power privileges" under specified
conditions." Under the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the
Secretary may lease a unit or units of the government-built
generating facilities, or lease the use of. water for generation of
Ra~EVANT FISCAl PaovIsioN.-As already noted, the con-
structing agencies are subject to general fiscal control under
the appropriation process. Their expenditures for operation
and maintenance are also subject to yearly legislative review.
But statutes generally provide greater flexibility in the case of
funds for operation and maintenanceithan for construction.
For example, Congress has authorized all appropriations
necessary for operation and maintenance of flood-control
M Act of June 17,1902, 6, 32 Stat. 388; 889,43, U.S. 0. 498.
mAct of August 13, 1914, 5, 38 Stat, 686, 68, 43 U. S. C. 499.
In 1924, it was required that, whenever two-thirds of the irrigable area of
any project shall be covered by water-right contracts a water-users' asso-
ciation or irrigation district shall be required to take over the project's
care, operation, and maintenance as a condition precedent to receiving cer-
tain benefits under the section. Act of December 5, 1924, 4, subsection G,
43 Stat. 672, 702, 43 U. S. C. 500. But provision was made two years later
for dispensing with this requirement as to. certain projects. Act of May
25, 1926, 45, 44 Stat. 636, 648, 43 U. S. C. 423d.
"'Act of August 4, 1989, 9(c), 53 Stat. 1187, 1194, 48 U. a. O.485h(c);
Act of April 16, 1906, 5, 34 Stat. 116, 117, as amended, 43 U. S. C. 522.
SAct of December 21, 1928, 6, 45 Stat. 1057, 1061, 43 U. S. C. 617e.
works authorized to be operated and maintained by the United
States.8" No corresponding general authorization exists with
respect to navigation projects, however.
As to Reclamation projects, an express purpose of the Rec-
lamation Fund is the "maintenance of irrigation works." B
And the Secretary of the Interior is directed to use the Fund
for the "operation and maintenance" of works constructed un-
der the statute."' In the General Appropriation Act, 1951,
Congress appropriated a lump sum for "operation and mainte-
nance of reclamation projects" and other facilities.8 Prior to
this, funds ire appropriated for individual projects with a
provision that 109 of the amounts so appropriated shall be
available interchangeably for expenditures on such projects
buit not more than 10% may be added to the amount appro-
priated for any one project.'
A further legislative recognition of the need for flexibility
here appears in provisions for funds of an emergency character
in the case of some, but not ail types of projects. For Army
Engineer flood-control projects, Congress has authorized ap-
propriations for initial establishment of a $15,000,000 emer-
gency fuiid and for its replenishment on an annual basis."T
Expenditures frm the fund may be made in the discretion of
the Chief of Engineers where necessary for the adequate func-
tioning of the work for flood ntrol:888
in rescue work or in the repair, restoration or mainte-
Snance of flood control work threatened or destroyed by
flood, including the strengtheningi raising, extending or
other modification thereof *
A somewhat similar authorization is available to the Secre-
tary of griIlture to expend not to exceed $300,000 for speci-
Act of August 18, 1941, 10, 55 Stat. 638,i51, 38 U. S. 0. 701T-1 note
Act ofJi 1te 1902, 1,32 Stat. 388, as amended, 43 U. S. C. 891.
S86, 32 Stat. 389, 43 U. S. 'C 491.
-Act of September 6, 1950; ch. VII, title I, 64 Stat. 595, -.
See, e. g., Act of October 12,1949, 63 Stat. 765,--.
Act of May 17, 1950, 210, 64 Stat. 168, --. See also supra, n. 62, pp.
fled "emergency measures" on any watershed suddenly im-
aired by fire or other natural force.i" No corresponding pro-
vision is made with respect to navigation projects. However,
since 1884 annual appropriations have been authorized forpre-
serving and continuing without interruption the use and navi-
gation of canals anidbther works.'"
In order to insure continuous operation of irrigation or power
systems operated by the Bureau; of Reclamation, Congress in
1948 authorized appropriations from the Reclamation Fund of
an emergencyy fund" to defray expenses incurred because of
unusual or emergency conditions" ~iSuch conditions are de-
fined to mean:'O
canal bank failures, generator failures, damage to trans-
mission lines; or other physical failures or damage, or
acts of God,.or of the public enemy, fires, floods, drought,
epidemics, strikes, or freight embargoes, or conditions,
causing or threatening to case interruption in water or
Still other statutes of more limited geographic application
provide for emergency funds. For example, a continuing fund
of $1,000,000 is availablee to the Tennessee Valley Authority
"to defray emergency expenses and to insure continuous opera-
tion." 'S Another continuing fund has been established in
connection with the Southwestern Power Administration.3"
"Act of December 22, 1944, f 1, s5 Stat. 887, 907, a amended ly Act of
May 17,1950, 216, 64 Stat. 48;, -.
"Act of July 5, 1884, .4, 23 Stat.;W 147, as ames. dedi, ,UJ. S. C. 5.
"Act of June 26, 1948, 1, 62 Stat. 1052, 43 U. 8. C. 502 (Supp. III).
J 2, 62 Stat. 10z 43.3 S. e. 50&1 (Supp. Ill). The Act specifies no
amount for this fund. ; Until 1950, appoflatihn acts eopt aned a provision
making available by transfer from the appropriation for any project ineluded
in the Actran amount sufficientt to make necessary emergency repairs"
should existing works or the water supply for lands under cultivation be
endangered by flood or other unusual conditions. Approvajlof the Secretary
was necessary. See, e. g., Act of October 12 1949, 68 Stat.765,-.
Act of May 18;198, i 26, 48 Stat. 58, 71,as added by Act of August 31,
1935, 10, 49 Stat. 1075, 1079, 16 U. 8. (CSaSy.
SAct of December 23, 1943, 57 Stat. 611, 621, as amended by Act of October
12, 1949, 63 Stat. 765, -.
Somewhat similar is the $500,000 continuing fund provided for
by the Bonneville Project Act "to defray emergency expenses
and to insure continuous operation.?, -A like fund under the
Fort Peck Project Act provides.-additionally for expenditures
to "defray the operating expense of generation and transmis-
sibli of power." -
Although the Boulder Canyon Project Act established the
special Cdlorado River Dam Fund,:no expenditures may be
made from that Fund for operation and maintenance "exoept
from appropriations therefore n
Of indirect interest here is the Emergency Fund available to
the President for assistance to "Sfate and local governments or
other agencies" in majit disasters. It was provided by appro-
priation acts beginning in1948." Under the direction of the
Bureau of Community Facilities, this Findkhas been itedigen-
erally to extend aid tostate and local governmenats ,n In 1950,
Congress enacted continuing, legislation authorizing such fed-
eral ssistans e ahd authorizing the iapropriis t the Presi-
dent of "i suin or sums r ot exceeding $5, M000 in the
aggregate, W., *
OPaeRATIoN i6 ADDrIONALo PU POBus.-As already toted,
the purposes contemplated by the original project afthorik-
tion and the project plans usually determine the uses for Whioh
a project may be operated.' As a practical inatter, hoWver,
recreation and the sale of surplus witer are purposes *hih
Act of agunt i20O, 1837, 0 1 gtAt 'ie 7864 a U. s,0. 88w:.. -
m Act of May 18,1938, g 10,52 Stat. 40,406,16 U. S. C. 8331. -
Act of December 21, 1928, 2(c), 45 Stat. 1057, 1058,4 U. S. C. 617a(c).
The Act. of Jape 25, 1948,12 8tat. 10 7,1081, appropri eq e$500,000 for
such disaster relief. Later, 1,000,000 was added to this appropriation. ].
1. Bes. 3112 f Januarry 2 98, s49, 83 tata ;,JE, fR. 1 f6py8,,tr 7,
29P),63 Stat. 5.,,
In 1949, thba fiud .war ,ombe!k.wth, the Preeidet's Emergency 5'ad,
and $1,000,000 was appropriated for the combined purposes. Act of August
24, 1949, title I, 63 Stat 630, -. This was repeated in 150L. Act t Sep-
tember 619, ch.VIII, title, 64 Stat. 595,-.
"See, e. g., Orders of the General Services Administratiop, dated May 24,
1950 and June 1,1950 15 F. R491,s800. .
Act of Sepembqr 80, 1950, 8. 64 Stat. 1109.-.
Smay nevertheless be added. This fact is variously recognized
Recreation.-In the case of recreation, we have previously
collected and reviewed the .significant provisions of law.M
It will bear repeating, however, that general provision has been
made for recreational use of reservoir projects under Army con-
trol.'02 But there is no: corresponding general authorization
with respect to projects of the Bureau of Reclamation.'" And
a different provision is available in the case of the Tennessee
Surplus Water.-The varying provisions of statutes concern-
ing supply of water for domestic municipal, stock-watering,
and industrial purposes have been previously grouped and
reviewed,' Some differences warrant comment here.
In specified circumstances, the Secretary of the Army may
receive contributions from local interests to be expended in
connection with funds appropriated for authorized flood-con-
trol work and may modify any reservoir project plans to pro-
vide additional storage capacity for "domestic water supply
or other conservation storage." While no corresponding
provision exists in the case of navigation or irrigation proj-
ects, a 1906 statute makes a limited provision for furnishing
water to towns in or near irrigation projects."
In the case of either navigation or flood-control projects, the
Secretary of the Army may make contracts for "domestic and
industrial uses for surplus water." "8 Such a contract may not
adversely affect "then existing lawful uses of such water."
4 See upra, pp. 331i-334.
"'Act of December 22,-1944, 4, 58 Stat. 887, 889, as amended, 16 U. S. C.
For instances of recreational use of reservoir areas at Reclamation proj-
ects under agreement with the National Park Service, see supra' 883.
"'Act of May 18, 1938, 4(k) (a), 48 Stat. 58, 60, as added by Act of
July 18 1941, 55 Stat. 599, 16 U. S. C. 831c(k) (a).
w See supra, pp. 819-327.; -
Act of June 22, 1936, 5, 49 Stat. 1570, 1572 as added by Act of July 19,
1937, 1, 50 Stat. 515, 518, 33 U. 8. C. 70ih.
Act of April 16, 1906, 4, 34 Stat. 116, 43 U. C. 567.
*"Act of December 22, 1944, 6, 58 Stat. 887, 890, 83 U. S. C. 708.
The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 contains the most re-
cent of several authorizations relevant here. Under its terms,
the Secretary of the Interier maysenter into contracts to furnish
water for "municipal water supply or miscellaneous pur-
poses." Such a contract may not impair the efficiency of
the project "for irrigation purposes."
CONFLICTS I~ IPROJECT USE.--Of pervading significance to
effective operation of an integrated system of water-resource
projects is the problem presented wher6' he diverse purposes
for which they may be operated cannot all be fulfilled. m-
portance therefore attaches to the statutory prescription of
standards governing or guiding admihiistratiie efforts to re-
solve such conflicts.
For example, there are times when the maximum demands
for navigation, flood control, electric power, and irrigation can-
not be satisfied by the same structure." A practical operating
problem then exists as to whether reservoir operation shall be
directed primarily to serving one or another of these needs"
For such an operating problem and its possible multiple varia-
tions, the lnw laks a total answer.
One provision of general application should first be noted.
In 1944, Congress assigned to the Secretary of the Army the
duty of prescribing regulations for the use of storage "allocated
for flood control or navigation" at all reservoir project con-
structed wholly or in part with federal "iunds provided on the
basis of such purposes," and required that operation of. any
such project must accord with those regulations.4 But re-
gardless of the possible project ise for these purposes, this pro-
vision does not of course govern fte use of storage at Reclama-
tion or other projects not constructed with "funds provided
Act of August 4,1939, 9(c), 58 Stat. 1187, 1194, 48 U. S. C. 4fB (c).
See, e. g., RnfoB ON FLOOD CONTROL OPBRATines, COLUMBnt BASN, 1950
FLOOD, Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, p0. 1-2;4, 5 (August
1950) ~ir a discussion of the conflicting interests in the operation of the
Columbia basin dams during the 1950 flood season, and the limitation placed
upon flood-control operations by the need to assure water for irrigation and
for logging operations.
See suprt, n. 199, p. 1009.
on the basis of such purposes." Nor is the requirement effec-
tive with respect to storage space not "allocated for flood con-
trol or navigation," even though there be additional storage
which might be used for these purposes.
We have earlier noted a restriction of limited application on
use of waters for navigation in the operation and maintenance
of certain projects. With respect to navigation and flood-con-
trol projects authorized since 1944, Congress has, prescribed a
formula restricting navigation use.*' But it does not apply to
pre-1944 projects. And the provision does not operate with
respect to waters other than those arising in states lying wholly
or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian. Nor does it
specify the relationship between navigation and nonconsump-
tive uses, such as power.
No comparable provision has been enacted with respect to
control of waters for purposes of flood control.
In the,case of Reclamation projects, Congress has directed
the Secretary of the Interior to proceed in conformity with state
laws in the appropriation of water for irrigation purposes."'
Moreover, Reclamation Law generally requires that contracts
for disposal of power may not be made if they would impair the
efficiency of the project for irrigatiOn purposes. And the situ-
ation is the same in the case of contracts for the supply of water
for purposes other than irrigation.'
Pertinent also are certain provisions of statute concerning
fish and wildlife. Since 1946, it has been required that when
any federal agency impounds, dverts, or controls waters, "ade-
quate provision consistent with the primary purposes' shall
be made for the conservation, maintenance, arid management
of wildlife."4 Furthermore, in the management of existing
facilities in the upper Mississippi River, the Department of
"4 See eupra, pp, 111-112.
See supra, pp. 46--49.
See, e. g., Act of April 16, 1906, 5, 84 Stat. 116, 117, as amended, 48
U. S. C. 522; Act of August 4, 1989, I 9(c), 58 Stat. 1187, 1194, 48 U. S. C.
Act of February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 451, 43 U. S. 0. 521; Act of August 4,
1939, 9(c), 53 Stat. 1187, 1194, 43 U. S. C. 485h(c).
"'Act of August 14, 1946, 5 3, 60 Stat. 1080, 1081 16 U. 8. C. 668.
the Army is directed to give full consideration and recognition
to the needs of fish and other wildlife resources and their habitat
dependent on such waters, and it is required generally to
operate and maintain pool levels as though navigation were
carried on throughout the year.'" Operation of works as
though navigation were carried on is thus required whether
needed or not.
From the foregoing provisions, it may readily be seen that
there are areas of uncertainty in the case of potential conflicts
among alternative uses to which a project or series of projects
on the same river may be devoted unless there be adopted a
standard uniform for the river basin.
Some operational decisions are necessarily left to administra-
tive discretion, a discretion which may be shared by several
agencies within the same river basin.'41 Furthermore, these
agencies have general statutory responsibilities to foster and
promote different water uses.4" This fact alone may impede
interagency agreement on an operational program. In addi-
tion, there are definite limitations upon the authority of an
agency to transfer its responsibility to an interagency group
seeking resolution of conflicting water uses.n An alternative
Act of June 19,1948, 62 Stat. 497, 16 U. S.C. 665a (Snpp. III).
'In addition to operation of navigation and flood-control projects by the
Army, Jngineers, and irrigation projects by the Bureau of Reclamation,
federal power-marketing functions are largely consolidated in the Secretary
of the Interior. See supra, pp. 29-300. Also, projects under the supervision
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be involved. See supra, pp. 250-254.
"See aupr, pp. 508-510.
SIn connection with such transfers, it should be noted that Congress has
authorized each department head to prescribe regulations "not inconsistent
with law" for the government of his department, the conduct of its officers
and clerks, for the distribution and performance of its business, and
the custody and use of property appertaining to it. R. S. 161, from Act
of July,27, 1789, 1 Stat. 28, as. amended, 5 U. 8. 0. 22. It would seem that
any transfer of a function vested by statute in a department head would
be inconsistentt with law." 27 OPs. ATTr' GEN. 542, 546 (1909); 29 OPs.
ATT'Y GE. 247, 249 (1911); 80 OPs. ATT'Y GE. 119, 122-123 (1913); 86
Ors. Ar'y GEN. 75 (1929). See also supra, p. 435.
Furthermore, Congress has often indicated affirmatively whether and
how a function may be transferred. Such authorizations are usually re-
stricted to personnel within the department or agency concerned. For
to trins~df of statutory functions where prohibited by law
would be voluntary interagency action, but to be effective
that would require unanimous consent of the participating
agencies as in the case of the procedure under the Federal
Inter-Agency River Basin Committee."
Consolidation of all water-resource project functions for a
river system in one agency would aid in resolution of conflicts
among purposes. To the extent permitted by physical facts
and applicable statutory standards, a single administrative
decision could then seek maximum achievement of all project
purposes. In the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority, con-
solidation of federal water-resource functions largely in a single
agency was effected under a single set of standards previously
discussed." A measure of consolidation has been accom-
plished with respect to the lower Colorado River where federal
water-resource operations are largely vested in the Bureau of
Reclamation.' Relevant to the latter case is the fact that
example, Congress recently conditionally empowered the Secretary of De-
fense to perform certain functions vested in him through or with the aid of
such "officials or organizational entities of the Department of Defense" as
he may designate. Act of August 10, 1949, 5, 63 Stat. 578. Similarly, the
Administrator of General Services is authorized "to regroup, transfer, and
distribute" certain functions "within the General Services Administration."
Act of June 30, 1949, 106, 68 Stat. 377, -.
Likewise, the transfer of certain reclamation functions is permissible
within the Department of the Interior, but not outside. Reorganization
Plan No. 3, 1950, 1, effective May 24, 1950, 15 F. B. 3174. See also supra,
SSee supra, p. 432. In connection with this latter possibility, see e. g.,
REPORT ON FLOOD CONTROL. OPERATION, COLUMBIA BASIN, 1950 FLOOD, Corps
of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation (August 1950), containing Mem-
orandum of Understanding Regarding Control of Storage in Grand Coulee
Reservoir for Reduction of Crest of the 1950 Spiang Flood on Columbia
See supra, pp. 484-186.
S'" the lower Coldfado River, the Hoover, Davis, Parker, and Imperial
Dams are all operated by the Bureau. It also maintains a front-work and
levee system in connection with the Yuma Project on the Colorado River.
Act of October 12, 1949, 63 Stat. 765, -. In connection With the perform-
ance of protection work between the Yuma Project and the Boulder Dam by
the Bureau of Reclamation, see Act of March 3, 1925, 43 Stat. 1186,' 18;
Act of January 21, 1927, 4, 44 Stat. 1010, i021; Act of July 1, 1940, 54
Stat. 708; Act of June 28, 1946, 60 Stat. 338.
the Boulder Canyon Project Act prescribes a fixed priority of
uses for the dam and reservoir, as previously pointed out.4"
But differing statements of purpose appear in connection
with other authorized dam along the lower Colorado.'Z
In any evaluation of the need for and type of statutory basis
which will permit effective resolution of conflicts among uses,
it must be remembered that the reward for coordination is great.
For the operation of a system of water-resource projects is a
dramatic illustration of the manner in which the whole may ex-
ceed the aggregate of its component parts. By hydraulic and
See supra, p. 547.
Imperial: Act of December 21, 1928, 1, 45 Stat. 1057, 48 U. S. 0. 617,
authorized the construction, operation, and maintenance of a "Initable diver-
sion dam" for.use in connection with a main canal entirely withlinthe United
States. The All-American Canal Contract of December 1, 1932, between the
United States and the Imperial Irrigation District, made pursuant to the Act,
provided for the construction by the United States of a "suitable diversion
dam" and main canal, therein styled Imperial Dam and All-American Canal.
HOOVE PDAM PowE. AND WAT CoNTaoTrs Awu RELATED DATA, Department
of the Interior, p. 65 (1950).
Parker: Act of August 30, 1935, 2, 49 Stat. 1028, 1089, authorized the
construction "for the purpose of controlling floods, improving navigation,
regulating the flow of the streams of the United States, providing for storage
and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof, for the reclamation of
public lands and Indian reservations, and other beneficial uses, and for the
generation of electric energy as a means of financially aiding and assisting"
such undertakings. See also supra, n. 33, p. 323.
Davis (originally Bullshead Dam): "Through regulation of the fow of
the main stream of the Colorado River below Boulder Dam it will contribute
to flood reduction, navigation improvement, irrigation and domestic water
supplies, power development, silt-pollution reduction, recreation, and wild
waterfowl protection, as well as other related conservation purposes. *
When an international agreement regarding the division of the waters of the
Colorado River between the United States and Mexico is completed, the accu-
rate control which will be provided by Bullshead Dam will be essential to
meter out the Water to be passed downstream." Project report ofthe Com-
missioner of Rclamation accompanying feasibility finding, April 26, 141,
from the Secretary of the Interior to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives, BuBEAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT FZASIBILTI ks AND AUTHOBISATIONS,
Department of the Interior, pp. 157-158 (1949). See also the Mexican Water
Treaty, effective November 8, 1945, Treaty Series 994, 59 Stat. 1219; Sen.
Res. of April 18, 1945,59 Stat. 1263.
electric integration, greater benefits caup be derived than when
the same projects are operated independently."
In discussing legislative review in connection with project
selection, e noted the general necessity for annual appropria-
tions in the financing of water-resource projects. Annual ap-
propriations from the general fund of the Treasury are in' fat
the meansii Wbi eh moii st such projects haite een financed.
SPECIAL FUND.--A substantial portion ofwater-resource
project financing, however, is accomplished through the me-
dium of special funds, But the establishment of such funds
does not remove the financing process from legislative scrutiny
since each agencymust submit to Congress its annual budget
program and summary of project activities for review by the
appropriation committees of Congress.'2 In most cases, as we
shall see, the use of such a fundrequires affirmative appropria-
tion action. In general, the effect of such a fund is to segregate
from the general fund of the. Treasury an amount to be
expended for specified purposes.
Reclamation Fund.-The outstanding example is the Recla-
mation Fund created for financing irrigation works and activi-
ties by reserving, setting aside, and appropriaing moneys re-
ceived from the disposal of publiclands in the 16 Western
States and Territories namedin the Act." After the Act creat-
ing the Fund as Judicially determined in 1909 to be an appro-
Montana f coprditiiffton with downtre :diams of the Columbia River
syktdm 'villproduce 40,0(0 more' ~ lo*atti of firm power 'tlan would the
isolated operation of this dam. ADVA qAo POmmGRA OF rAWTB MlsaiMO STYBEM
DzvaoanNTrr, ,:1 1956S Bonneville PolWer Adminidtraton, p. 26 (150):.
"Act'otoJune 10, 191, 42 Stat. 20, as amended, 81 U. S. 1 et eq.; lx
O. No.'9884, October:4, 18, 8 F. R~ 13782 81 U. S. C. 21 note following.
See the definition of ".appropriations" in the Act of September 12, 1950,
Title I, Part 1, S 101, 64Stat.882, -
Act.of June 17, 1902,.., 1, 32 Stat. 388, s amended, 43 U. S. C. 391. For
a moredetailed discussion of the Fund, and reference to the addition of Texas
as the 17th state, see supra, pp. 198-202.