B-152983, JUL. 2, 1964
Highlights
YOU MAKE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE FINAL SENTENCE OF THE ABOVE QUOTED PARAGRAPH AND STATE THAT THE IMPORT OF THAT SENTENCE IS UNCLEAR. YOU INQUIRE WHETHER IT IS PROPER TO CONSTRUE IT TO MEAN THAT WHEN OUR OFFICE REVIEWS THESE CONTRACTS WITH THE SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER USERS THAT WE COULD ASK THAT THEY BE SET ASIDE AS BEING UNAUTHORIZED OR AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. BY THAT SENTENCE WE MEANT THAT WE WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM QUESTIONING A PARTICULAR CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT IF UPON REVIEW WE FOUND THERE WERE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION OR CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION OF JANUARY 21.
B-152983, JUL. 2, 1964
TO MR. JAMES G. PATTON, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION:
YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12, 1964, REFERS TO OUR LETTER OF JANUARY 21, 1964, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR RELATIVE TO CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND WATER USERS ALONG THE SACRAMENTO RIVER.
IN OUR LETTER OF JANUARY 21 WE STATED THAT:
"IN VIEW OF ALL THE REPORTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND, IN PARTICULAR, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT LITIGATION, IF NECESSARY, WOULD BE LENGTHY AND COSTLY AND, BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF WATER RIGHTS, THE OUTCOME THEREOF DOUBTFUL WITH PERHAPS A FURTHER LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF LITIGATION, WE WOULD NOT QUESTION YOUR JUDGMENT THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 14 OF THE RECLAMATION PROJECT ACT OF 1939, PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS ON A PROSPECTIVE RATHER THAN A RETROACTIVE BASIS. CANNOT, OF COURSE, COMMIT OURSELVES TO AN APPROVAL IN ADVANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEPEND ON AUDIT AFTER THE FACT.'
YOU MAKE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE FINAL SENTENCE OF THE ABOVE QUOTED PARAGRAPH AND STATE THAT THE IMPORT OF THAT SENTENCE IS UNCLEAR. YOU INQUIRE WHETHER IT IS PROPER TO CONSTRUE IT TO MEAN THAT WHEN OUR OFFICE REVIEWS THESE CONTRACTS WITH THE SACRAMENTO RIVER WATER USERS THAT WE COULD ASK THAT THEY BE SET ASIDE AS BEING UNAUTHORIZED OR AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
BY THAT SENTENCE WE MEANT THAT WE WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM QUESTIONING A PARTICULAR CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT IF UPON REVIEW WE FOUND THERE WERE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION OR CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION OF JANUARY 21, 1964, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND GIVING RISE TO QUESTIONS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THAT DECISION.