Nope, as far as I am concerned, you're taking your interpretation of the plaintiff's claim's to your logical conclusion ... the logic of which is extremely dubious IMHO.
The pertinent Reclamationm Act was a contract between the government and the people involved. The government has not kept faith with the terms or conditions of the contract. What should happen is that the project should be privatized as was intended. Your claims about these particular farmers being on some kind of free ride as respects this project or the water involved are so much smoke and hot air whose only purpose is (IMHO) to support your own position.
But [YAWN], what else is new? 'Nuff said.
What I mean is that there would be NO authorization for the gubmint to destroy the water projects already put in.
If that were the case, the dams would have to be removed from the TVA, the Columbia River, the Colorado River, etc.
I agree that the Constitution did not authorize them in the first place. Now that they're there, there is also no authorization for the gubmint to remove them, although the environazis here in the Northwest are demanding that very thing.
In Idaho, a few years ago, there was a real bloody fight over the dams Idaho Power built in Hell's Canyon. The two Idaho democRAT senators tried their best to (unconstitutionally) build a single high dam, at taxpayer expense, and DESTROY the three revenue-producing dams that private enterprise built. Thankfully, the gubmint lost, but only just barely, and Pfost and Church are gone on to their rewards.