WSPC01517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

)I ,. 'J J ) " -, f . '-1 .' 001402 has not secured such approval; nor has any application been made by Wilbur, who is proceeding to construct said dam in complete disregard of this law of Arizona. (1,2) The United States may perform its functions vdthout conforming to the police regulations of a state. Johnson v. Imry1and, 254 U.S. 51, 41 S. ct. 16, 65 L. Ed. 126; Hunt v. United States, 278 U.s. 96, 49 S. Ct. 38, 73 L. Ed. 200. If Congress has power to authorize the construction of the dam and reser- voir, lJi1bur is under no obligation to submit the plans and specifications to the *452 state *engineer for approval. And the federal government has the power to create this obstruction in the river for the purpose of improving navigation if the COlorado river is navigable. Pennsylvania v. TIheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 430, 15 L. Ed. 435; South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 11, 23 L. Ed. 782; Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269, 17 S. Ct. 578. 41 L. Ed. 996; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar TIater Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 64, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063; Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. GarrisOll, 237 U.S. 251, 258. 269. 35 S. Ct. 551. 59 L. Ed. 939. Arizona contends both that the river is not navigable. and that it was not the purpcse of Congress to improve navigation. (3-9) The bill alleges that "the river has never been. and is not now, a navigable river." The argument is that the question whether a stream is navi- gable is one of fact; and that hence the motion to dismiss admits the allegation that the river is not navigable. It is true that whether a stream is navigable in law depends upon whether it is navigable in fact, United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 51 Sup. Ct. 438, 75 L. Ed. 844; and that a motion to diSmiss, like a demurrer, admits every well-pleaded allegation of fact, Payne v. Central Pacific Ry Co., 255 U.s. 228. 232. 41 S. ct. 314, 65 L.Ed. 598. But a oourt may take judicial notice that a river within its jurisdiotion is navigable. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 697, 19 s.Ct. 770, 43 L. Ed. 1136; ~ear v. Krolsas, 245 u. s. 154, 158, 38 S. ct. 55, 62 L. Ed. 214. *453 * We know judiCially, from the evidence of history, that a large part of the Colorado river south of Black Canyon was formerly navigable, and that the main obstacles to navigation have been the accumulations of silt coming from the upper reaches of the river system, and the irregularity in the f10Vl due to periods of low water. Commercial *disuse resulting from changed geographical *454 conditions, and a congressional failure to deal with them, does not amount to an abandonment of a navigable river or prohibit future exertion of federal con- trol. Econamy Light & Pewrer Co. v. United States, 256 U.S. 113, 118. 124, 41 S. Ct. 409, 65 L. Ed. 847. ~e know from the reports of the committees of the Congress which recommellded the Boulder Canyon project that, in the opinion of the government engineers, the silt will be arrested by the dam; that, through use of the stored water, irregularity in its flow below Black Canyon can be largely overcoree; and that navigation for considerable distances both above and below the awn will become feaSible. Compare st. Anthony Falls Viater-Power Co. v. Board of TIater Commissioners of City of St. Paul, 168 U.S. 349. 359. 18 S. Ct. 157, 42 L. Ed. 497; United States v. Cress. 243 U.S. 316. 326, 37 S. Ct. 380, 61 L.Ed. 746. -3-