The authority conferred upon the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to reconsider his decisions after the filing of appeals to the Secretary does not extend to those cases in which the Director's decisions indicate that other persons have an interest in the proceedings adverse to the appellant. 61-407

When an appeal is taken to the Secretary from a decision of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Director loses his jurisdiction in the matter and may not, thereafter, in the absence of authority from the Secretary, render a supplemental decision in the matter. 61-407

Refusal to admit an inspector of the Bureau of Mines to a coal mine is a violation of the act of May 7, 1941 (55 Stat. 177). If unopposed by physical force, an inspector may enter a coal mine in spite of the opposition of the owner, but the use of force to gain entrance is not justified. Entrance to mines and reports from owners may probably be compelled by injunction. 57-420

Since a coal prospecting permittee under the leasing act of Feb. 25, 1920, possesses a valuable right which may be interpreted as exclusive even against the Government, the Government should obtain the consent of the permittee to exploration for coal by the Government in an instrument defining the interests of both parties. A similar agreement should be executed with an applicant for a lease who has made a coal discovery under a prospecting permit and with an applicant for an extension of a prospecting permit who has made substantial improvements or investments for prospecting under his permit. No agree

ment is required where there has been filed and not yet granted an application for a permit or for an extension of a permit under which no substantial improvements or investments have been made. The Bureau of Mines should request the General Land Office to deny any such application when the Bureau of Mines intends to explore the area itself. No agreement with a prospecting permittee is necessary where the Bureau of Mines intends to explore for minerals other than those covered by the prospecting permit.

57-478

A non-Government agency engaged in research under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Mines is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government, so as to exempt it from nondiscriminatory sales or use taxes imposed by a State. Such taxes are not a direct burden on the Federal Government even though the cost of a purchase is borne by the Government.

57-490

In the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, there is no legal objection to the employment of Canadian contractors to drill for strategic minerals in Alaska under the act of June 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 811, sec. 7, 50 U.S.C. 98f). The domestic preference act of Mar. 3, 1933 (47 Stat. 1520, 41 U.S.C. 10(b)), is not applicable since the drilling contract is not a contract for the construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or public work. 58-124

In order to assure the production of strategic minerals discovered by it, the Bureau of Mines may, in executing agreements for mineral explorations on privately owned lands, include as a condition an option in favor of the United States which will allow an authorized agency of the Government to undertake further development and production of the minerals discovered. 58-179

The contribution of a private corporation to a joint investigation with the Bureau of Mines cannot be made by paying the salaries of Bureau personnel who are placed on leave without pay and assigned to the joint work while on a leave status. The contribution of the party cooperating with the Bureau may be made by pay

ment to the Bureau, and may be measured by the salaries and expenses of the Bureau's personnel assigned to the joint work.

58-201

The Bureau of Mines may procure the performance of services by a firm of engineers, as independent contractors rather than as Government employees, upon a satisfactory showing of reasons why the services are not to be performed by its own personnel. Lack of time, space, special machinery, and trained personnel may be sufficient reasons for having the work performed by an independent contractor.

58-213

The fee simple title to the land is in the United States with the right of use and occupancy in the Navajo Tribe of Indians. The United States may enter into a lease with the Navajo Tribe with the consent of the tribe and the approval of the Secretary. While the act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. 729) prohibits the sale or lease of lands by Indian tribes or nations, the prohibition does not extend to the sovereign. The Bureau of Mines is authorized to erect permanent improvements on leased lands pursuant to the act of Sept. 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 885). The opinion of the Attorney General as to the validity of title pursuant to Rev. Stat. 355, as amended, is unnecessary. 58-351

An official of the Bureau of Mines, whose invention was made prior to Nov. 17, 1942, and outside the general scope of his governmental duties, is not required by Secretary's Order 1763 of Nov. 17, 1942, to assign his invention to the United States and may own and control his invention, irrespective of whether its use may be in a mine which is the subject of investigation or inquiry by the Bureau of Mines. 58-355 Irrespective of any conflict of interest, a member of the Bureau of Mines is prohibited by section 4 of the act of Feb. 25, 1913 (37 Stat. 681), from having any interest in a mine or in the proceeds of a mine concerning which the Bureau of Mines is conducting any investigation of economic or other inquiry.

58-355

The private business interest of officers and employees of the Bureau of Mines may be restricted by regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior. 58-355

are

con

1. GENERALLY Indian irrigation projects structed pursuant to special acts of Congress and annual appropriations from the Treasury, and the moneys resulting from payment of construction charges, etc., are returned to the Treasury as general funds, whereas the Reclamation Act fund is in fact a revolving trust fund, money expended therefrom being returned thereto by the owners of the lands benefited, to be again expended in connection with 54-90 Reclamation Act projects.

Authority to contract to deliver water from a canal to be constructed of necessity carries with it authority to contract for a canal capacity sufficient to carry the water to be delivered in addition to any other water to be carried, if said canal is to 54-414 carry other water.

Although the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service are all interested in the Columbia River Reservoir area, its administration is vested in the Secretary of the Interior rather than in any particular bureau, and the Secretary, by virtue of section 161 of the Revised Statutes (now 5 U.S.C. 22), may select any one or more of the interested agencies to administer any part of the reservoir area. 59-149

The authority conferred by the reclamation laws upon the Secretary is sufficiently broad to permit the roughing in of farm distribution systems on public lands as an incident of the construction of an irrigation project. 59-299

Funds appropriated for the construction of the Davis Dam project may be used to defray the cost of excavating archeological sites on lands owned by the Government in order to preserve from loss by flooding valuable relics belonging to the Government which would necessarily be lost otherwise as a result of the construction of the project and the spreading of the waters in the reservoir. 59-465

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding effect which the impounding of waters will have upon wildlife resources must take place at an early stage in the planning work on any reclamation project, prior to the authorization of the project in the technical sense.

59-470

Authority to determine whether, and to what extent, funds appropriated to the Bureau of Reclamation shall be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the making of surveys and investigations as to the probable effect upon wildlife resources of the impounding of waters is vested in the Secretary of the Interior.

59-471

The existence of authority in section 2 of the act of Mar. 10, 1934, as amended (31 U.S.C. 686), for the transfer of funds from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Fish and Wildlife Service for surveys and investigations does not prohibit the two Bureaus from entering into cooperative agreements under the Economy Act, with transfers of funds under such agreements from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Fish and Wildlife Service, for services to be performed by the latter in fields other than those specifically contemplated by section 2. 59-471

II. ACCOUNTING

Instructions of May 3, 1928, accounts. Paragraph 85, Cir. No. 616 (Aug. 9, 1918, 46 L.D. 513), amended. (Cir. No. 1148.) 52-365

Section 236, Revised Statutes, as amended by section 305 of the act of June 10, 1921 (42 Stat. 24), confers upon the General Accounting Office authority to settle and adjust all claims, demands, and accounts in which the United States is concerned either as debtor or creditor, and the decisions of the accounting officer are

controlling upon administrative officers of the Government. 53-586

Interest accruing upon deferred charges under the moratorium act of Apr. 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 75), is neither a construction charge under section 3, nor an operation and maintenance charge under section 6 of the extension act of Aug. 13, 1914 (38 Stat. 686), and is not, therefore, subject to the delinquency penalty imposed by subsection H of section 4 of the act of Dec. 5, 1924. 54-86

Where a water user or water users' association or irrigation district that has been granted deferments under the moratorium act of Apr. 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 75), defaults in the payment of the annual interest when due, simple interest may thereafter be charged upon the sums of interest due annually upon the principal debt as long as they remain unpaid.

54-86

The provisions of section 245.21 (h) (43 CFR, 1944 Cum. Supp.) of the regulations of Dec. 14, 1942, which permit the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe a uniform accounting system for grantees of rightsof-way, are a necessary means of insuring uniform reports which is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary, but because the purposes of the Department are fulfilled by the grantee's adoption of a system of accounting prescribed by the Federal Power Commission it is desirable that this section of the regulations should be qualified by a proviso that adoption of such system shall be deemed compliance with the requirement of this section. 58-608

III. ALLOCATION OF COSTS

The provisions of the repayment contracts between the United States and the Flathead irrigation district, the Jocko Valley irrigation district, and the Mission irrigation district, which limit construction costs to specified amounts per acre but include power development costs as part of the construction costs of the Flathead irrigation project, are in harmony in this respect with the acts of Congress in accordance with which the project was built.

Neither the language of the Flathead project legislation nor its legislative or

departmental history reveals any intention to segregate power construction costs from irrigation construction costs, so far as the repayment contract requirements of the legislation are concerned.

The approval of the repayment contracts by the Department constitutes a practical contemporaneous construction of the requirements of the legislation.

Power development has always been an integral part of the irrigation project system.

The term "construction costs," as employed in the Flathead project legislation, includes all construction costs.

To exclude power costs from construction costs would, in effect, make the former a deferred obligation, but the only such obligation specifically deferred is the excess cost of the Camas division of the project. The fact that the legislation provides that the power construction costs are to be liquidated first from the net power revenues is of no significance, since various other obligations were also to be liquidated from these revenues, including irrigation construction costs.

The lien provisions of the legislation apply to power as well as irrigation construction costs and are not contingent on lack of power revenue.

The directions in the legislation for the issuance of a public notice refer to "the total unpaid construction costs."

The maintenance of a separate bookkeeping account for power is also of no significance, since power revenues are set aside for certain purposes.

The fact that the power development is capable of continuous expansion only demonstrates the desirability of limiting the power costs.

Repayment contract requirements of irrigation legislation should be strictly construed to insure the reimbursement of the Government.

Since the cost limitations on the Flathead and Mission Valley divisions of the project have already been exceeded, no further construction may be undertaken without securing supplemental repayment contracts with these districts.

59-30

IV. APPLICATION OF REVENUES The proceeds derived from the sale of male reindeer belonging to the United States in the Territory of Alaska are to be deposited in the Treasury of the United States. 53-71

Where the administrative officers of the Government fail to apply the net profits derived from the operation of a project power plant annually to the operation and maintenance costs of the project taken over by an irrigation district as required by subsection I of section 4 of the act of Dec. 5, 1924 (43 Stat. 672), and such profits together with the amount paid by the irrigation district would have liquidated the debt of the district, no penalty can be charged against the district.

53-257

In view of the special act of Mar. 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1562), which specifically prescribes for the distribution of the net proceeds derived from the operation of the Shoshone power plant constructed by the United States at the Shoshone Dam, Wyoming, the general provision contained in subsection I, section 4, of the act of Dec. 5, 1924 (43 Stat. 672) relative to the distribution of the accumulated net profits derived from the operation of project power plants has no application to that project. 53-427

The provision in section 14 of the act of Dec. 21, 1908 (45 Stat. 1065), that "claims of the United States arising out of any contract authorized by this act shall have priority over all others" entitles the United States thereto only so long as the net proceeds from power development are in the hands of the irrigation district. 56-116

Section 7 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (act of Dec. 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1062) provides that the net proceeds from any power development on the All-American Canal shall be paid into the canal fund until the equivalent of operation, maintenance, and construction costs shall have been paid. The PWA and REA proposed making loans for the construction of power systems, on condition that the gross revenue of such systems be applied to the operation and maintenance costs and payment of bonds securing the loans. Held, That the United States is entitled

Use by the city of San Diego, California, of water obtained from the All-American Canal, will be, in the language of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, a beneficial use and exclusively within the United States, and accordingly, a contract made by Secretary of the Interior with the city of San Diego, whereby the carrying capacity of said canal is to be increased, the work to be performed by the United States with provision made for repayment of the cost by the city, is permissible under the terms of the said act. 54-414

In the construction of public works, a contract by the Government for an entire structure is valid, even though funds are not at the time available for its completion, if in the contract it is provided that in the event the necessary allotment or appropriation of funds for completion of the structure should not be made, the Government is to be released from all liability due to such failure of allotment or appropriation.

54-432

The provisions of the repayment contracts between the United States and the Flathead irrigation district, the Jocko Valley irrigation district, and the Mission irri

gation district, which limit construction costs to specified amounts per acre but include power development costs as part of the construction costs of the Flathead irrigation project, are in harmony in this respect with the acts of Congress in accordance with which the project was built.

Neither the language of the Flathead project legislation nor its legislative or departmental history reveals any intention to segregate power construction costs from irrigation construction costs, so far as the repayment contract requirements of the legislation are concerned.

The approval of the repayment contracts by the Department constitutes a practical contemporaneous construction of the requirements of the legislation.

Power development has always been an integral part of the irrigation project system.

The term "construction costs," as employed in the Flathead project legislation, includes all construction costs.

To exclude power costs from construction costs would, in effect, make the former a deferred obligation, but the only such obligation specifically deferred is the excess cost of the Camas division of the project. The fact that the legislation provides that the power construction costs are to be liquidated first from the net power revenues is of no significance, since various other obligations were also to be liquidated from these revenues, including irrigation construction costs.

The lien provisions of the legislation apply to power as well as irrigation construction costs and are not contingent on lack of power revenue.

The directions in the legislation for the issuance of a public notice refer to "the total unpaid construction costs."

The maintenance of a separate bookkeeping account for power is also of no significance, since power revenues are set aside for certain purposes.

The fact that the power development is capable of continuous expansion only demonstrates the desirability of limiting the power costs.

Repayment contract requirements of irrigation legislation should be strictly construed to insure the reimbursement of the Government.