Whether the nondelegation doctrine and separation of powers prevent courts from interpreting a federal statute's 'and other purposes' clause to invest an agency with unrestricted authority

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress authorized construction of the Twitchell Dam on California’s Cuyama River in 1954. Public Law 774 declared the Dam’s use to be “irrigation and the conservation of water, flood control, and for other purposes,” pursuant to California water law, and in accordance with a 1953 Secretary of the Interior Report. The Secretary’s Report stated that the Dam’s water was meant to recharge groundwater, and acknowledged this would harm fish migration, but expressly declined to change operating plans to mitigate that harm. The Dam’s operation recharges the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, the principal source of groundwater for over a quarter million residents and businesses, as well as a commercial agriculture industry. In the opinion below, over a vigorous dissent, a two-judge majority Ninth Circuit panel held that the agencies operating the Dam have discretion to divert its water different from the limited Congressional authorized uses, to benefit a fish species’ migration. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the nondelegation doctrine and separation of powers prevent courts from interpreting a federal statute’s “and other purposes” clause to invest an agency with unrestricted authority. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated established principles of cooperative federalism when it failed to consider state water law and state water rights in interpreting Public Law 774’s authorized use of the water from the Twitchell Dam operations.