32

32

eral fund of the Treasury. The 1910, 1931 and 1938 Acts appear herein in chronological order.

Supplementary Provisions: Additional Receipts to Reclamation Fund. The following Acts, all of which appear herein in chronological order, authorize additional receipts to the Reclamation Fund as follows: (1) Section 5 of the Reclamation Act, all moneys received from entrymen or applicants for water rights; (2) Act of March 3, 1905, proceeds from sale of certain property and refunds from reclamation operations; (3) Section 2, Act of April 16, 1906, and section 3, Act of June 27, 1906, proceeds from sale of town lots; (4) Section 5, Act of April 16, 1906, and HaydenO'Mahoney Amendment to Act of May 9, 1938, proceeds from power operations; (5) Act of October 2, 1917, receipts from lease of potassium deposits; (6) Act of

July 19, 1919, proceeds from lease of, and sale of products from, withdrawn lands; (7) Section 35, Act of February 25, 1920, proceeds under Mineral Leasing Act; (8) Act of May 20, 1920, proceeds from sale of surplus lands; (9) Section 17, Act of June 10, 1920, charges arising from licenses for occupancy and use of withdrawn public lands; (10) Act of March 4, 1921, and Act of January 12, 1927, contributions and advances; (11) Act of June 6, 1930, money collected from defaulting contractors or their sureties; and (12) HaydenO'Mahoney amendment to Act of May 9, 1938, all moneys received from reclamation projects including incidental power features thereof.

Editor's Note, Annotations. Miscellaneous annotations of opinions dealing with the Reclamation Act generally are found at the end of the Act.

The official reports show that, in 1902, there were in 16 States and Territories 535,486,731 acres of public land still held by the Government and subject to entry. A large part of this land was arid, and it was estimated that 35,000,000 acres could be profitably reclaimed by the construction of irrigation works. The cost, however, was so stupendous as to make it impossible for the development to be undertaken by private enterprise, or, if so, only at the added expense of interest and profit private persons would naturally charge. With a view, therefore, of making these arid lands available for agricultural purposes by an expenditure of public money, it was proposed that the proceeds arising from the sale of all public lands in these 16 States and Territories should constitute a trust fund to be set aside for use in the construction of irrigation works, the cost of each project to be assessed against the land irrigated, and as fast as the money was paid by the owners back into the trust it was

again to be used for the construction of other works. Thus the fund, without diminution except for small and negligible sums not properly chargeable to any particular project, would be continually invested and reinvested in the reclamation of arid land. Swigart v. Baker, 229 U.S. 187, 193-94 (1913).

The reclamation fund is a special fund, but not a trust fund. 14 Comp. Dec. 361, 364 (1907).

Since, in the absence of specific statutory authority, one department or branch of the Government is not authorized to enter into contracts with another such department or branch and to make payments thereunder, the General Land Office may not lawfully pay rent to the Reclamation Service for the use of a part of a warehouse when the reclamation fund is not depleted by such use. However, any cost of maintenance of the warehouse may be apportioned properly between the Reclamation Service and the General Land Office. 22 Comp. Dec. 684 (1916).

2. Construction with other laws

The Act of June 27, 1906, 34 Stat. 518, granting to the State of California 5 per cent of the net proceeds of cash sales of public lands in that State, including sales made prior to its passage and since the admission of the State, does not authorize the withdrawal of any part of the proceeds of public lands of said State carried to the reclamation fund prior to its passage. Five per cent of the net proceeds of cash sales of public lands in the State of California made after the passage of the Act of June 27, 1906, is set aside by that act for educa

tional purposes and excepted from moneys appropriated after its passage to the reclamation fund. 13 Comp. Dec. 289 (1906).

It is not the intent of Congress by the Acts of April 16 and June 27, 1906, 34 Stat. 116 and 520, to take away the right of the State of Idaho to the 5 per cent of the net proceeds of sale from public lands for the support of the common schools of the State lying within said State. If, however, the whole proceeds of said sales have been covered into the "reclamation fund" and the 5 per cent paid to the State out of the permanent indefinite appropriation therefor, the reclamation fund should be charged therewith. 20 Comp. Dec. 365 (1913).

Moneys paid to the Treasurer of the United States in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act of August 20, 1912, 37 Stat. 321, authorizing the Attorney General to compromise suits involving lands purchased from the Oregon & California Railroad Co., are not "moneys received from the sale and disposal of public lands" within the purview of the reclamation act, but are "miscellaneous receipts." Effecting a compromise of a suit does not constitute a sale of public lands. Where a conveyance by a grantee of public lands is decreed void or is set aside if found voidable only, a forfeiture to the United States does not ipso facto result, and lands once granted by the United States cannot thereafter be classed as public lands so long as any unextinguished right or title therein under or through said grant exists. 20 Comp. Dec. 397 (1913).

Moneys received from royalties and rentals under the Act of October 2, 1917, 40 Stat. 297, which authorizes exploration for and disposition of potassium on public lands, should not first be deposited to the credit of sales of public lands, but should be credited directly to the reclamation fund. Comp. Dec., December 5, 1918.

3. States covered

Because the emergency fund, established by the Act of June 26, 1948, is derived from the reclamation fund, it is limited in its application to the states named in section 1 of the Reclamation Act. Consequently, it is not available for use in Alaska. Memorandum of Deputy Solicitor Weinberg, April 14, 1964.

6. Deposits to fund-Leases

The full 100 percent of the proceeds of the lease is appropriated, without deduction, to the reclamation fund by section 1 of the Reclamation Act. Departmental decision, in re Owl Creek Coal Co., August 31,

1912.

Moneys derived by the Reclamation Serv

33

ice from the lease of lands in the Uintah Indian Reservation should be covered into the Treasury to the credit of the reclamation fund, the liability of the Reclamation Service to compensate the Indians for the use of such lands not affecting the disposition of the proceeds derived from their use. 14 Comp. Dec. 285 (1907).

The First Assistant Secretary, in modifying departmental instructions of Sept. 14, 1936, with reference to leases of land under the Taylor Grazing Act, held that the Secretary's authority to lease lands withdrawn in connection with a reclamation project, was recognized by the Congress in subsection I of the Act of Dec. 5, 1924, and that all leases of land withdrawn for reclamation purposes should be made under the authority of subsection I; that all such leases should be made in the form approved June 18, 1934; and that whatever moneys may yet be received from leases of withdrawn reclamation lands made in accordance with prior instructions of September 14, 1936, should be disposed of in accordance with subsection I. Instructions, M29482 (October 8, 1937).

7. -Mineral leases

Lands withdrawn for a reservoir site or similar reclamation purposes which are essential to the project, and lands acquired by purchase or condemnation for the exclusive use of the project, may be developed for their mineral resources only by temporary leases for periods not inconsistent with the needs of the project, and the proceeds therefrom must be placed in the reclamation fund to the credit of the project. J. D. Mell et al., 50 L.D. 308 (1924)

8. Refunds

The amount of purchase money refunded in reclamation States, in cases of erroneous sales of public land, under the provisions of sections 2362 and 3689, Revised Statutes, should be deducted from the total sums received in said States in computing the amounts to be transferred to the reclamation fund by appropriation warrants. This section does not authorize the transfer to the reclamation fund of moneys paid to a receiver by an intended purchaser of public lands unless the sale is confirmed and the lands are actually conveyed by the United States to the purchaser. 20 Comp. Dec. 415 (1913).

Moneys erroneously paid to a receiver of public moneys by a would-be purchaser of public lands and which are required by law to be refunded are not moneys received from the sale or disposal of public lands within the meaning of this act. 20 Comp. Dec. 597 (1914).

34

9. Advances

Where necessary canals, laterals, and structures properly a part of a Federal irrigation system cannot be constructed by the United States because funds are not available, a landowner may advance the needed moneys to the United States, and he may be later reimbursed, without interest, by credits upon his water charges as they become due. Departmental decision, October 8, 1919, Milk River.

16. Expenditures authorized-Generally

The authority of the Secretary respecting the use of the reclamation fund is to make preliminary investigations to determine the feasibility of any contemplated irrigation project, to construct reservoirs and irrigation works, and operate and maintain those thus constructed, and to acquire "for the United States by purchase or condemnation under judicial process" rights or property necessary for these purposes. California Development Co., 33 L.D. 391 (1905).

In a decision rendered July 18, 1924 (A-2537), in connection with work under article 6 of the treaty with Great Britain regarding St. Mary and Milk Rivers, the Comptroller General ruled that the appropriation of $100,000 for investigations of secondary projects from the reclamation fund made by Act of January 24, 1923 (42 Stat. 1207), could not be used on work under said treaty, as the proposed work was not in connection with "examination and survey for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works, etc.," and not within the purpose for which the reclamation fund was established.

If a grantor of land to the United States for a nominal consideration pays the stamp taxes provided for deeds of conveyance under the "Revenue act of 1918," approved February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1057), he may properly be reimbursed therefor from the reclamation fund as a part of the consideration for the land conveyed. Comp. Dec., April 22, 1919.

17.-Research

The Bureau of Reclamation has basic authority to conduct weather modification research. This authority stems from the provisions of section 1 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 that the reclamation fund may be used "for the ✶✶✶ development of waters for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands." Letter of Solicitor Barry to Senator Jackson, June 11, 1964.

The Bureau of Reclamation is authorized under reclamation law to expend appropriations made from the general funds of the Treasury under the heading "General Investigations-general engineering and re

search" for atmospheric water resources research that is of primary benefit to States other than 17 Western States. Although expenditures from the Reclamation Fund may be made only for the benefit of the 17 Western States, expenditures from general fund appropriations are not so limited because section 2 of the Reclamation Act and section 8 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 evidence a Congressional intent to make the benefits of reclamation law available to all parts of the Nation notwithstanding the limitations on the use of the Reclamation Fund. Memorandum of Associate Solicitor Hogan, July 13, 1966.

In view of the fact that the Reclamation Service must proceed in many cases in conformity with State laws, and it is necessary to institute cases in State courts or intervene in those brought by others, the expense of such proceedings in State courts in payment of lawful costs, including expenses of necessary printing and costs of appeal bonds, should be charged to the reclamation fund. It is understood, of course, that such proceedings on behalf of the United States will be instituted by or with the authority of the Attorney General, and that it is not intended by this decision to include compensation to attorneys or counsel. Comp. Dec., June 30, 1914, and December 6, 1916.

Costs in an action against an employee of the Reclamation Service which is defended for said employee by the United States are payable out of the reclamation fund. Comp. Dec., in re Marley v. Cone (Salt River), December 6, 1916. 19. Rewards

The reclamation fund may not be used as a reward for the apprehension of an employee of the Reclamation Service who may have been guilty of a breach of trust. Departmental decision, January 28, 1910.

If, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, the offering of a reward for the return of horses belonging to the Reclamation Service which have strayed away would be an appropriate means to be used to secure their return, he is authorized to make the offer under section 10 of the reclamation act. Comp. Dec., May 19, 1911.

If it is deemed necessary to operate a telephone line in connection with the work authorized under the reclamation act, the Secretary of the Interior unquestionably has the authority to take such action as may be necessary and proper to protect such telephone line from damage or interference while in the possession of the United States. The means to be employed for such protection is left largely in the discretion of the

Secretary. If, in his judgment, the offering of a reward for information leading to the conviction of any person willfully damaging or interfering with such telephone line would be a necessary and proper means to

35

protect it from such damage or interference, payment from the reclamation fund of the reward so offered would be authorized when satisfactory proof of the earning thereof has been presented. Comp. Dec., March 7, 1913.

Provisions Repealed. The Act of August 7, 1946, 60 Stat. 866, which appears herein in chronological order, repealed those provisions of section 2 requiring annual reports to Congress. Before repeal of the reporting provisions, the section read as follows: "The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to make examinations and surveys for, and to locate and construct, as herein provided, irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters, including artesian wells, and to report to Congress at the beginning of each regular session as to the results of such examinations and surveys, giving estimates of cost of all contemplated works, the quantity and location of the lands which can be irrigated therefrom, and all facts relative to the practicability of each irrigation project; also the cost of works in process of construction as well as of those which have been completed."

Editor's Note, Special Authorizations for Studies. From time to time Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to undertake special studies of water resources developments involving reclamation. Although some of these Acts are included herein in chronological order and others are noted below, no systematic effort has been made to include all such authorizations.

Tri-County Project, Nebraska. The Act of Sept. 22, 1922, ch. 430, 42 Stat. 1057, authorized an additional investigation of the Tri-county project in Nebraska and an extension of the investigations into Adams

County to ascertain whether it is practicable to convey for irrigation purposes flood waters from the Platte River onto the lands in the counties comprising the project.

Palo Verde and Cibola Valleys. Engineering and economic investigations in Palo Verde and Cibola valleys on the Colorado River were authorized by the Act of April 19, 1930, ch. 192, 46 Stat. 222.

Gila River Above San Carlos Reservoir. The Act of May 25, 1928, ch. 742, 45 Stat. 739, authorized an appropriation of $12,500 for surveys and investigations to determine the best methods and means of utilizing the waters of the Gila River and its tributaries above San Carlos reservoir in New Mexico and Arizona, provided the States of Arizona and New Mexico cooperated by appropriating an equal amount. Arizona by Act of its legislature November 28, 1926, appropriated $6,250 and New Mexico by Act of March 8, 1929, appropriated $6,250. The work was covered by contract dated August 12, 1929, with the States of Arizona and New Mexico, $12,500 having been appropriated by the Second Deficiency Act of March 4, 1929, 45 Stat. 1643.

Cabinet Gorge. An authorization of $25,000 to be appropriated to provide for studies for the development of a hydroelectric power project at Cabinet Gorge on the Clark Fork of the Columbia River, for irrigation pumping or other uses was made by the Act of August 14, 1937, ch. 619, 50 Stat. 638.

1. Examinations authorized-Generally

The Reclamation Service cannot, while construction of a project is in progress, and prior to the laying out of its canals, undertake to reexamine, at the instance of individual claimants, particular tracts falling within the project, to ascertain whether or not such tracts are capable of service from