|
government, except to the extent necessary to protect other nave•
<br />gable waters, Federal legislation with respect to navigable waters
<br />is permissible only when it has some real and substantial relation
<br />to the control of navigation;, United States v. River Rouge, Imp.
<br />Co,, 269 U.S. 411, i 19, 46 s,Ct. 144, 70 L,Ed„ 3391 Port of Seattle
<br />V. Oregon &•W. Rf, Co., 255 U.S, 56, 63, 41 S,Ct. 237, 65.L.Ed, 500=
<br />Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 415, 49 S,.Ct. 163, 73 L.Ed, 426,
<br />For instance Congress has notauthority to- construct a`hydro- electric
<br />dam primarily and only for the development and sale of water power.
<br />A.shwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 333, 56 S.Ct.
<br />466, 80 L,Ed, 688= Alabama Power Co. v. Gulf Power Co., D, C., 283¢
<br />F. 606, 6131 Little Falls Fibre Co, v, Fore & Son, 245 N*Y. x-95, 507,,,
<br />164 N.E. 558, affirmed 280 U,S. 369,'50 s.Ct. 11x.0, 74 L. Ed. 483."
<br />Citing Gibbons v, Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, the Court in the case of the
<br />United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Coo, supra, stated: "The
<br />federal government has no property rights An navigable streams or in the
<br />water thereof ". Its control over the stream is limited to its power under
<br />the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. If this statement is
<br />true as to navigable streams it is likewise true as to non navigable
<br />streams* In 1937 the United States Supreme Court in Ickes vs. Fox, supra,
<br />declared:
<br />"Congress had severed the land and water constituting the public
<br />domain and established the rule that for the future the lands
<br />should be patented separately, Acquisition of the government
<br />title to a parcel of land was-not to carry with it a water.+right;
<br />but all non - navigable waters were reserved for the use of the
<br />public under the laws of the various arid -land states."
<br />The two decisions last cited establish the principle that the govern«
<br />ment has no property rights in water of non - navigable streams and that
<br />Congress in disposing of the public domain had severed the land and water.:
<br />This holding is in accord with the proposition that any interest which
<br />the federal government ever had with respect to streams running through
<br />the unoccupied public domain, was by virtue of the incidental riparian
<br />right. In Kansas vs, Colorado, supra, the Supreme Court announced that
<br />a state had full power to adopt any doctrine respecting the use and
<br />.11-
<br />
|