violation of the law, and should be enjoined. On July 7, 1964, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was granted on August 19, 1964.
6. On July 16, 1964, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation informed the President of the plaintiff organization that it was not the intention of the Bureau of Reclamation that the reduction in diversions be applied in such a manner as to result in the impairment of crop yield to any individual, and that "additional water will be available for delivery to meet individual hardship cases if any develop."
7. The defendant filed his answer to the complaint on October 9, 1964. The Second and Fourth Defenses of the answer specifically alleged that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and the concluding prayer of the answer was that this action be dismissed.
8. On September 1, 1965, the plaintiff filed a certificate of readiness. On September 10, 1965, the defendant filed an Objection to the Certificate of Readiness, and a Motion to Dismiss.
9. No consent has been given by the United States to the filing of an action against it relating to its administration of contracts entered into by it for the delivery to individuals and organizations of Colorado River water from storage in Lake Mead.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The defendant's motion to dismiss was timely filed.
2. The Secretary of the Interior had authority under the Boulder Canyon Project Act, 43 U.S.C. sec. 617 et seq., to enter into the contract with the plaintiff described in finding 3 above. Such contract does not require the delivery to the plaintiff of any specific quantity of water, but only of so much water as may be "reasonably required and beneficially used" by the plaintiff.
3. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, 43 U.S.C. sec. 617 et seq., is a constitutional statutory delegation to the Secretary of the Interior of the power to direct, manage, and coordinate the operation of the installations and projects constructed and operated by the United States along the Colorado River. State of Arizona v. State of California, 373 U.S. 546, 83 S. Ct. 1468, 10 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1963).
4. The action of the Secretary of the Interior in reducing by ten percent the amount of water which the plaintiff might order during the balance of 1964, and at the same time providing that additional water would be made available to meet such individual hardship cases as might develop, was not a violation of the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff under the contract of May 26, 1956.
5. The action of the Secretary of the Interior in reducing by ten percent the amount of water which the plaintiff might order during the balance of 1964 was within his statutory authority; the statute conferring upon him the authority is constitutional, and the Secretary of the Interior exercised this authority in a constitutional manner.
6. The action of the Secretary of the Interior in reducing by ten percent the amount of water which the plaintiff might order during the balance of 1964 was the action of the sovereign, and, the sovereign not having consented thereto, may not be enjoined, or otherwise made the subject of any court proceedings. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S. Ct. 1457, 93 L. Ed. 1628 (1949).
7. The defendant's motion to dismiss should be granted, and the preliminary injunction heretofore entered in this cause should be dissolved.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.