California v. United States - 438 U.S. 645, 98 S. Ct. 2985 (1978)

Rule:

In interpreting § 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C.S. § 372, state water law does not control in the distribution of reclamation water if inconsistent with other congressional directives to the Secretary. 

Facts:

In connection with construction of the New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River as part of a reclamation project authorized under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (generally 43 USCS 372 et seq.), the United States Bureau of Reclamation applied for permits from the California State Water Resources Control Board to appropriate the water that would be impounded by the dam and that later would be used for reclamation. Although the Board approved the Bureau's application, it attached a number of conditions to the permits allocating the water. Thereafter, the United States brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to obtain a declaratory judgment that the federal government could impound whatever unappropriated water was necessary for a federal reclamation project without complying with state law. The District Court held that, as a matter of comity, the federal government had to apply to California for an appropriation permit, but that California had to issue the permit without condition if there was sufficient unappropriated water. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, rather than comity, required the United States to apply for the permit, and that California could not condition its allocation of water to a federal reclamation project

Issue:

Could a state impose a condition on a federal reclamation project if the condition was not inconsistent with clear congressional directives respecting the project?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court held that it was clear that the State had the control of the water within its boundary and that it was essential that each and every owner along a given water course be amenable to the law of the State, if there was to be a proper administration of the water law. The lower courts did not reach the United States' alternative contention, and the Court remanded the case for additional factfinding.