7313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

those waters may be permitted if it would contribute to the conditions that produced the violations," California v. Federal Ener;gy Regulatory Commission, 49 5 D .S. _, 109 L.Ed,2d 474, no S.Ct, _' Pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license authorizing operation of the Rock Creek hydroelectric project in Califor- nia. FERC also set minim\lm flow rates for the project. The licensee also applied for State water permits. When the State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) considered a draft order requiring much higher minimum flow rates, the licensee petitioned FERC for a declaration that FERC possessed exclusive jurisdiction to determine the project's minimum flow requirements, FERC issued an order directing the licensee to comply with the Federal permit requirements, reasoning that setting minimum flows was integral to FERC's planning and licensing process under section 10(a) of the FPA. Four days after FERC's order, the WRCB issued an order directing the licensee to comply with the higher State-mandated minimum flows, WRCB also asked FERC for a rehearing of its order. FERC denied the request for a rehearing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that FPA section 27, as construed in First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 D,S. 152 (1946), did not preserve California's right to regulate minimum flow rates and that the FP A preempted WRCB's minimum flow rate requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit, holding that if the meaning of section 27 and the preemptive effect of the FP A were matters of first impression, California's argument that the stream flow requirements relate to a use encompassed by section 27-the generation of power or protection of fish---could be said to present a close question. However, the Court found that First Iowa previously construed section 27 and held that the section is "limited to laws as to the control, appropriation, use or distribution of water in irrigation or for municipal or other uses of the same nature" and has primary, if not exclusive, reference to such proprietary rights. The Supreme Court "decline [ d] at this late date to revisit and disturb the understanding of ~27 as set forth in First Iowa," The Court also found that Congress has amended the FPA to elaborate and reaffirm First Iowa)s holding that the FP A establishes a broad and paramount Federal regulatory role. Finally, the Court held that allowing California to impose the challenged minimum flow requirements would be contrary to congres- sional intent regarding FERC's licensing authority and would, as the Ninth Circuit found, "constitute a veto of the project that was approved and licensed by FERC," 30