Analysis of funds and costs, Boulder Canyon investigations, fiscal years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924 107 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case Analysis of funds and costs, Boulder Canyon investigations, fiscal years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924-Continued 315 Reporter's Statement of the Case "The appropriation for fiscal 1924 carried $100,000 for Colorado River investigations (finding 16). The Reclamation Service allotted $50,000 of this appropria- Reporter's Statement of the Case 107 C. Cls. 26. Within two years from the date of the contract in suit the Congress of the United States authorized similar investigations for and on behalf of the United States as provided in such contract, and made sufficient appropriation therefor (by the act of May 24, 1922, 42 Stat. 552, and the act of January 24, 1923, 42 Stat. 1174). Such similar investigations were completed during the fiscal year 1924. 27. Between February 16, 1922, and February 16, 1924, appropriated funds available to the Reclamation Service for Boulder Canyon investigations exceeded the United States' share of the costs of those investigations in the amount of $53,864.50, which excess reverted to the reclamation fund. Of such amount $50,283.25 was appropriated after February 16, 1922, and prior to February 16, 1924, although such sum of $50,283.25 did not revert to the reclamation fund until July 1, 1924. 28. The appropriations made by Congress for "similar investigations for and on behalf of the United States" within two years from the date of the contract in suit were not used in their entirety by the Reclamation Service for continued investigation in the Colorado River Basin, although the Appropriation Act was based upon estimates which planned that the entire amount would be so used. At the end of the fiscal year 1924, an excess of said appropriated funds over and above the amount actually allotted and expended was in the sum of $50,283.25. If this excess was, as plaintiff contends, available to the Reclamation Service "for reimbursement of funds advanced" in accordance with the terms of section 18 of the contract in suit, plaintiff's proportional part of any refund therefrom would be 55/91 of such sum (since plaintiff advanced $55,000 of the total of $91,000 deposited under the four affiliated contracts) or $30,390.97. The Congress has never specifically authorized either refund of or reimbursement for funds advanced by plaintiff, its affiliated contractors, or similar contractors. Compare, however, the terms of the act of December 5, 1924 (43 Stat. 685; 43 U. S. C. 396). 29. Until inquiry was made in 1935 concerning possible 315 Reporter's Statement of the Case rights of plaintiff under section 18 of the contract in suit, no notice was given by the defendant to plaintiff, and the officials of plaintiff chargeable with responsibility for seeking any refund or reimbursement that might have been due did not know, and made no inquiry to ascertain, that any funds appropriated for investigations similar to those provided by the contract in suit remained unexpended on June 30, 1924. 30. In 1929, an agency of the State of California known as the Metropolitan Water District, was formed to serve an area in which the City of Los Angeles comprised approximately 70 percent of the assessed valuation. A contract was thereafter made between the Metropolitan Water District and the City of Los Angeles whereby the former agreed to reimburse the latter for expenditures which the city had made for investigations to determine the feasibility of bringing water from the Colorado River into the area. At the time such contract was made the Metropolitan Water District had in its employ an accountant who had been chief accountant of the Reclamation Service from 1922 to 1924, in which latter position he had been familiar with the terms of the contract in suit. On the basis of information possessed by this accountant, the propriety of reimbursement by the Metropolitan Water District to the City of Los Angeles of amounts advanced by the City of Los Angeles to the Reclamation Service under the contract in suit was questioned. Thereafter, claim was filed by plaintiff with defendant for refund under section 18 of the contract in suit. 31. On October 31, 1935, plaintiff filed a claim with the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, for reimbursement under section 18 of the contract in suit. The claim was denied by the Bureau of Reclamation on November 26, 1935. On May 18, 1936, plaintiff filed its claim for such reimbursement with the Comptroller General of the United States, who denied the claim on September 12, 1936. On November 14, 1936, plaintiff filed with the Comptroller General a request for reconsideration by him of his ruling of September 12, 1936. This request was denied by the Comptroller General on February 4, 1937, in a letter reaffirming his decision of September 12, 1936. Opinion of the Court 107 C. Cls. The court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. MADDEN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff sues the Government for money allegedly due it under a contract, made on February 16, 1922. By its terms the plaintiff agreed to deposit $75,000 with the United States Reclamation Service to be used to pay for investigations on the Colorado River in the vicinity of Black and Boulder Canyons, to determine whether it was practicable to dam the river for the purpose of irrigation and power development. The investigations and the expenditure of the funds was to be under the direction of the Chief Engineer of the Reclamation Service. Investigations for the same purpose had been pursued, intermittently, for many years before the time of this contract, and were continued thereafter. The information obtained from all the investigations was the basis for the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928, under which the Boulder Dam was built. Under the Kincaid Act of May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 600), Congress appropriated money for investigation of this problem, but conditioned its expenditure upon the contribution by associations and agencies other than the United States, of at least one-half the costs of the investigations. Contributions were made by various local agencies under this act, but not by the plaintiff city. While the Kincaid Act investigations were in progress, the plaintiff advanced a proposal for the construction of a high storage dam in the Boulder Canyon area, in which it would share the costs of construction. This proposal was under consideration by the Reclamation Service in the summer of 1921 when the investigation funds of that agency for the investigation of the Boulder Canyon problem were substantially exhausted, and no more United States funds were in sight for the next year. Both the Reclamation Service and the plaintiff, as well as other agencies which would benefit by the Boulder project, were anxious that the investigations be not interrupted. The Director of the Reclamation Service solicited contributions from interested agencies, including the plaintiff. The Secretary of the Interior, in whose department the Reclamation Service was, was reluctant to accept contributions, lest the contributing agencies should |