Laserfiche WebLink
<br />granted in all Regional Authority bills for an Authority to acquire prcperty by <br />condemnation. Such power, under the Taylor Bill, would be exercised in accordance <br />with the provision now contained in the T. V. A. Act: and proceedings to condemn <br />property by the express terms of the Bill must take place in the Federal courts <br />without trial by jury. The property involved would include personal, as well as <br />real, property; and the Bill specifically empcwers the acquisition by condemnation <br />of existing water rights. <br /> <br />It is only necessary for a Corporation to determine that the taking ef <br />proporty by condemnation is required "to effectuate thG purposes of the Act." <br /> <br />This broad power to expropriate private property has been approved by the <br />United StatGS Supreme Court. In the case of TennGssee Valley Authority v. WGlch, <br />et al, rGndered on 1mrch 25, 1946, the Court upheld the various provisions for <br />condemnation of property contained in the T. V. A. Act now included in the Taylor <br />Bill. <br /> <br />Let us look at SOIT8 of the language of this decisien. It sounds like a <br />paraphrasing of somo of the argumGnts against Authorities \Vhich opponGnts have <br />mde to <br /> <br />The Court saidl <br /> <br />~~~~ <br />~ <br /> <br />W...It reasoned that the common law rule of construction <br />requirGs that statutory pmlors to condemn bG given a <br />restrictive interprGtatien. But SGction 31 of thG Act <br />expressly providos that the Act shall be 'liberally <br />construod to carry out thG purposes of Congrass to pro- <br />vido... for the national defenso, improve navigation, control <br />destructivo floods and promote interstate commerce and the <br />genoral welfare'. In the face of this declaratien, thG <br />District Court erred in following the asserted eomman <br />law rule." <br /> <br />Then the Court held: <br /> <br />''WEll think that it is tho function of Congross to decido <br />what type of taking is for 0. public use and that the <br />agency lliuthorized to do the taking rrny do so to the <br />full extent of its statutory authority." <br /> <br />Then thoro is this most interosting obsorvation by tho Court: <br /> <br />"....That Act does far more than authorize the T.V.A. to <br />build isolated dams. The broad responsibilities placed <br />on the Authority rel~te to navigability, flood centrol, <br />reforestation, marginal lands, and agricultural and <br />industriml developmGnt of the ~hole TGnnGssee Valloy. <br />The T.V.A. v~s Gmpowerod to makG contracts, purchase and <br />sell property dOGmed nocessary or convenient in the trans- <br />action of its business, and to build dams, roservoirs, <br />transmission lines, power housos, and other structuros... <br />All of the J~thority's actions in thoSG respects wore to <br />bG directed towards 'developmont of tho natural roscurcos <br />of tho TcnnGsseG Rivor drainage basin and of such adjoining <br />territory as may be relatod to or materially affectod by <br /> <br />-7- <br />