## Facts

- Congress authorized construction and operation of New Melones Dam as part of the federal Central Valley Project under the Reclamation Act of 1902.
- Section 8 of the Reclamation Act directs that nothing in the Act interferes with state laws governing the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of irrigation water, and requires the Secretary of the Interior to proceed in conformity with such state laws.
- The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation applied to the California State Water Resources Control Board for a permit to appropriate water to be impounded by New Melones Dam.
- After hearings, the Board approved the application but imposed 25 permit conditions under California’s water-appropriation scheme, including a condition barring full impoundment until the Bureau demonstrated a specific plan for use of the water.
- The United States sued California and the Board, seeking a declaration that the federal project could impound needed unappropriated water without compliance with substantive state-law conditions.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit required the United States to obtain a state permit but held California could not impose the contested conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether § 8 of the Reclamation Act authorizes states to impose substantive permit conditions on federal reclamation projects’ appropriation and use of water.
2. Whether California’s conditions governing control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water are enforceable against the United States absent inconsistency with clear congressional directives for New Melones Dam.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, under § 8, a state may impose conditions on the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in a federal reclamation project unless the conditions are inconsistent with clear congressional directives respecting the project.
- The Court disapproved prior dicta suggesting broader federal immunity from state water-law conditions in the reclamation context.
- The case was remanded for determination whether any of California’s specific conditions conflicted with clear congressional directives; only conflicting conditions would be invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Section 8 of the Reclamation Act incorporates state water law as governing rules for federal reclamation water rights, subject to displacement by clear contrary congressional directives.
- States may require federal reclamation entities to comply with substantive state permitting requirements and conditions regulating control, appropriation, use, or distribution of irrigation water.
- Federal supremacy is preserved by invalidating only those state conditions that conflict with explicit congressional decisions for the particular federal project.
- Nonbinding statements in earlier cases cannot override § 8’s text and purpose; contrary dicta do not control the scope of state authority under § 8.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 8 generally subjects federal reclamation projects to state water-law permit conditions and remanded for a condition-by-condition inquiry into whether any California requirements for New Melones Dam were inconsistent with clear congressional directives.


California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978)