Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />and Rocl~rnntion stated: <br /> <br />2041 <br /> <br />I~unning throughout tho bill (particularly Sees. 2 <br />and 27), it is made nnnifestly cloar th~t tho jurisdiction <br />of the Authority would be exercisod to provide for tho <br />national dofenso, improve navigation. oontrel destructive <br />floods. promote intors t~to 0 ommerce. and the gonero.l we Ifo.re, <br />o.nd provide for tho disposition ~nd nIDking ef noedful ruloa <br />and rogulations rospocting Government properties. Those aro <br />all Foderal fut~tions us distinguishod from rights in wator <br />acquirod under Stato l~w. Section 27 provides th~t the bill <br />sh~ll bo liborally construod to offoctuato a porformance of <br />these Federal functions. It thus appears tho.t the uses of <br />water undor Stato l~w for irrigation and other beneficial <br />consumptive usos and tho developmont and control of water for <br />tho accomplishmont of tho Fedoral purposes. will bo in 0. con- <br />flicting position undor tho Authority. The rolationship <br />betweon Fedoral and State l~ws, now rooognizod and presorvod <br />by existing procedures and policies, will be threatened, if <br />the Authority should be permitted by the courts to carry out <br />the functions delegated to it by this bill. In effect, in case <br />of conflict, the Feder~l oontrol would prev~il. and the St~te <br />la~, while not necessarily interfered with, would be evaded, <br />Such a result is nmvavoided. Section 8 of the Federal <br />Reclamation Act requires that. in carrying out recl~mntion <br />projects the Secretary of the Interior sh~ll proceed in con- <br />formity with State laws; and the conflict between navigation <br />~nd irrigation uses of wator is resolvod qy the Flood Control <br />Act of 1944. Further. the integrated progr~m of the two <br />principal Foder~l ~gencies brings the uses ~nd control of <br />wnter, whether under Fedoral or St~te law, into h~rmony. It <br />would seem th~t under the essential principles of S.555, the <br />inclusion of o.ny provision which would adequately protect <br />userS of water under St~te law would be impossible." <br /> <br />Proposo.ls for river Authorities are ~ttempts to cre~te Feder~l agencies <br />having the powers of State Governments in regard to water matters. A situo.tion . <br />wherein there exists dual acministration of wo.ter resources is not only unworknble <br />but 0.150 utterly foreign to our system of government. It should be obvious to 0.11 <br />that it is no solution of the problem to create an instrumento.lity of government <br />having in water matters the powers o.nd responsibilities of State Governments, in <br />addition to the Federal powers properly exercised. onder the Constitution; and at <br />the same time to preserve the recognized quasi-sovereignty of the Sto.tes." <br /> <br />4. j)'ederal Financing of River Development. Under the provisions of the <br />Taylor Bill, like those of the Mitchell Bill~ broad discretion is reposed in the <br />Corporation to determino the o.llocation of projoct costs and the repo.~rrent torms <br />for roimbursable costs, and to fix the financial policy for basin~vido development, <br />As pointed out o.bove, it is specified by these Bills that tho Corporo.tion m~y defer <br />annual payments due the United stutes Treasury without the colloction of interost <br />ch~rges during the deferred period. Studios of tho T. V. A.'s oper~tions <br />demonstr~te that this existing Authority h~s failod to return reimburs~blo monies <br />approprio.ted by the Congress. It h~s been shown, too. th~t if intorest is <br />charged on money o.dvancod by tho Government, the T. V. A. suffers ~n annuo.l <br />financial loss under its present pmvor ro.tes ~nd miscoll~noous colloctions. BUt <br />the provisions of the Taylor Bill o.uthorize the Corpor~tion to oxorciso as much. <br /> <br />-9- <br />