|
<br />18
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER lllGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />19
<br />
<br />ha.ve 1\1so been expandinO'. J\.fU11icipaJ di\:c~ion~ were no~ a problem
<br />during the first half of tr,e 10th celltur~', 'rl"lg:'tlOlI WlLS vIrtu:t1ly UR-
<br />knowll, pollution was not t.lm problem It now 18, and small mill da~s
<br />did not cOlllpare with the I!iant hvdroplants of today. .'Ve ha,:e, In
<br />. somo fashion, to relate all of these /actOl'S :vnd the navIgatIOn servltude
<br />to each other as hest we can, with foil awareness t,hat the broadened
<br />detinition of navirr:l.lJle streams laas carried with it, a widened n.pplica.-
<br />tioll of the servit,f,le and wit,h inqoiry into whether the benefits of the
<br />servitude e_xlcnrl to t.he 1\OW('.1' F'NIC'l'al nses of wat.er.
<br />One of the lin;t questions that arises is that of ,the Jegal!ty of diver-
<br />sioTls made from 1l:l\,jf'IlU]O streams fOl" IrrIgatIOn, mUnicipa.l water
<br />supply, and the ]i~e. lIere we hav~ to recl~on n?t only with t.he navi-
<br />gation servitude Itself but. also w,th the ImphcatlOn of the Desert
<br />Land Act's language ("and all surplus water o\'er and a,bove such ~c~
<br />tual appropriation and use, together with the water of al1lakes, rIv-
<br />ers, and oth6l' sources of supply upon the public landsand not navi-
<br />qable, sl,all rellIain an,l be held free for the a])P.roprll1.tlO!' an~ use ~f.
<br />the public")," and ultim:ttely WIth the prollltlltlOn agalllst ImpedI-
<br />ments to navig:ablc ('.:lpncit.y fOllnd in tltp_ ISDO find IS!)!) acts.OJ .
<br />A distinction, such as the Deselt Land Act makes, between the DaVI-
<br />gable and nonnavigable portions of n s~l'~am syst,:m is understandable
<br />histol'ically for the purpose of detel'mmlllg the tIt1~ to !and underly-
<br />iner the water<J.i and it. mflkes sense when the questIOn IS one of pro-
<br />hibit.ing or reg1l1ati~g t.lle erection of ~tr!lctl~l'eS which are physical
<br />impediments to naV)CT;ltlOll. But. t.he dlstlllctlOll becomes an attempt
<br />to separate t.he insC'.,';;rnble find. as the Rio Grande case !nakes clear,
<br />cannot be maintained when t.he problem is one of preservmg a proper
<br />flow of water to serve navigation needs. The aut.h~)I's of the Feder~l
<br />Power Aet were aware of this fact and the PollutIOn Control Act IS
<br />not based on any such distinct.ion. ~ts retent.ion in the cfl;se. of diyer-
<br />sions ean only lend to misllllderstandlllg and trouble. If It IS naVIga-
<br />tlonol power to promntr n comprf"!h('n!llve dl',"('lopml"nt of thl" No.t1on's ~ntf'r re!!ourCl"Fl and
<br />thot It ha!! eXf'rclr<ed lt~ nlll!lnrlly hy tlw Fetlf'rnl WntE'r Po~cr Act. . See, In ndrtltlon,
<br />fh.. (nllflwin)::' c'OlIoqll.r Oil tllt' 11001' of the UOIl<l.e, rcpnrlf'd In 0.) ConfJrrlllllOlllll Record, 9408
<br />(1~~r/ hAU::. Mr. Chnlrmnn. wUl thl" ~ent1emnn .vll'I11?
<br />""'Ir D'}~WART. I \"I("hl to th(' ~l"ntleUHln from Mnln{>.
<br />"~Ir: HAI.F.. I hnprlf'n to hI!' pnrflClllnrly Intf'r"!'Bt('d In the confltltutlonnl que:<:t1on wbere a
<br />hvdrol']f'('trlr Ilrojf'ct I" f~lnl'fru(:tf>tl without lIn~' ('If'nlf'nl (lr flood control or nn\'IJmt1on or
<br />Ilil'rthlnc: of thnt kind. Did the gcntl\'mnn'lI committee I;lve nny pnr1l('ulnr cOD!.\ldcratlon to
<br />tbat polnO _ .
<br />""Ir O'RWART. WI" rllrl not J:'lvr pnrllclIlnr cnnfllr!rrntlon to tbnt point, .
<br />"AIil-' to the cOIl!:lItntlonnl qllf'flllon or n h,v,lroelc('trlc plnnt on n nnvlJ;'nhle fltrel!.rn, may
<br />I say thnt thl!! IfI 1I0t 0 nllvJ~nl'lf' fllrenm. It t!i 0 loke above the ocenn nbout 1.000 feet.
<br />A I'Itrl'nlll come!.\ down from the Inkl">, hut It 111 onb- n Rmnll one, nnd I doubt, tberefore.
<br />fllnc(' It III not 0 nn\'h!':lhlc strenm, tbnt tbe constttuttono.l qnestton tbat tbe gentleman
<br />bnM In mind 'Woulrl npply. I Ifl d tb
<br />"Mr. R,\"';. I think thnt v('r;v ext('nlll,.... proj('ctR - . - bOTe been usf e on e
<br />Jr}"ollnd or flnod control I\nd nnthmtlon, thp h,vdrol'lectrle feo.tures be ng rf'gorded D8
<br />lnchll'nlrll Thot wonld not be thl' cnl'le with thlll project.
<br />"Mr, n,'RwART. Thnt IR trur. There YOll hnd navh;mble streamll. In this CBBe It Is not a
<br />nDvlj!nble strentn. There fA that distinction between the two projects, .
<br />- - - - . -
<br />"Mr O'RWART, It III my op1nlon. hecnu~c th... Iltr(!am IIIl not nnvlt:nble, tllBt thnt provision
<br />or the' ConstitutIon doel!l Dot npply. However. I admit tbAt tile gl"ntIemnn 18 over my
<br />be:.zds':'Jlra. nolI' 2:1. AI'I Ihp ml'mornndum from Ihr C'ommlfll'lonl"r" or Rp('lnmntlon refel'Ted
<br />to In till"> Ocr,""ch C'fII'I', IIUJ'lrrr, nolI' :'iO, mllk~ clpnr, thp Rurf'nu of Re("lnmntlon al'n('rnll,.
<br />drnw" no dl"'tlnctlon bl'twr'('n nnv1l!'nhlp o.nd nonnavhmhlp l'ltreams whl'n mok!n!! flPprOPM.Il-
<br />tlonl'l nnft,'r Stnt€': InwlI. The dl8t1nctlon IA olso, with few exception II, not eX(lresaed In
<br />thoae 10wlI.
<br />a Pllpra. Dl'lt('fI 28. <10. ~ 8' . 0
<br />"For nnm11I1'. Unite" 8tntt:. v. Utah, 2A3 U.R, 64 (1931). nnd Unitt:... at:. T. regan,
<br />29:'i tJ S 1 (1n3~) on tM" qu,""Uon nil bdween the Statelll nnd the United 8tnt'"". Paoter
<br />v 'BIr;' '1~7 UR "81 (1f~91l dealt! ,..Itb the ruleB ~overnlnJl' the conlltrnctlon or fl('ranfA b~
<br />th... Unit...~ Alnt",." nnd 110lntlll out the "'ll.rllln~1l In the la"'8 ot the vnrloDl'I Btde. wita
<br />rupfr't tD private Ter~UB State ownerRblp ot laod oDderlllnr oDTlgllble waten.
<br />
<br />tion that is to be protected, t.he proper distinctinn is in terms of the
<br />effect. of allY propo~cd diversion on navigation, not, in torms of the
<br />placc wherc t.he (li\'crsioll is made. If, vice VCl'sa, divcrsions fOJ" con.
<br />sUllIptinl !lSC al'l~ to bt~ Iwrmitted or Cllcollrag\'1.I, I,here i~ lit.t.le HellSe in
<br />l'eotluirillg" that. they b(1 made in the nOIlII:t.\'igablo portions of a. stream
<br />system alld fOl'hidding them to be made elsewhere.
<br />Dut this, of course, raises the second and broader fJ.ucst.ion-that of
<br />the legality of diversions, wherever made, that impair the navigable
<br />capacity of our streams. The Rio Grande caSe made clellr that the
<br />1866 allll ]8ii acts do not protect against tho ]800 and 1800 acts.
<br />lri"~r.nn.~in \". l1/illois I'~, nddC'd to this tlw w:u.lliw' t.hat. {WC'll the Secre-
<br />tary of the Army has 110 authority to license ,{"permanent di,'ersion
<br />of water for other than navigation purpcses;
<br />. . . comIllninnnts urge that the (livl"rsion here is for purposes of snnit3tion
<br />and tlevelopment of power only, nnd therefore thnt it lies outside the power con-
<br />fided hy C(1IIg-I'e~s to th~ Secretary of War" The Master I':.ays:
<br />"There is no doubt that the di\"er!'iion is primarily for the purposes of sllnita-
<br />tion. Whatever may be said as to the service of the diverted water in relation
<br />to a waterway to the .Mississippi, 01" as to the possible benefit of its contribution
<br />to the navig:ntion of that ri"er fit low water st..'lges, it remains true that the fli~
<br />. position of Chicago's sewage has been the dominant factor in the promotion,
<br />maintenance nnd development of the enterprise by the State of Illinois and the
<br />Sanitary District. ... ... ..."
<br />- . - . . - .
<br />The normal power ot the Secretary ot War under section lOot the Det ot
<br />Morch 3, 1899, is to maintflin the navigable cnpacity of Lake ~Iichignn and not
<br />to restrict it or destroy It by diversions. This is what the SecretarieR of War
<br />aDd t.he Chiefs of Engineers were tr)'ing to do in the inter\"31 between 18!lO and
<br />1007 nnd HIl3 when the nppIications for 10,000 cubic feet n seconu were r1enied
<br />by the successive Secretaries 3nd ill If!OB [when] n suit wn:;; brought by the
<br />United Stutes to enjoin n flow beyond 4,1G1 cubic feet D second.
<br />. . . - .
<br />. - - It mny be t.hnt some flow from the Inke I~ nece:<:saf}. to kl"ep UJl nnvic:n-
<br />tion in the Chkn~o Ri'"er, which really is pnrt of thl" ]lOTt. of Cllicn,CfI, hut that
<br />amount is n{'~lig"ihle fiR cnmpart"d with R,!iQO second.ff'f't now b('ill~ dinrted.
<br />JIf'ncf'. he-rOlltl thnt ne,g-Iig'ihle 'lllnnt.ity, the vnlidity of the ~('('r{'tnry's r]fl~:)]
<br />pt'rlllit df'rin'<,; it:;; support elltit"c]y from n situation prMlllccd by the Sauit:1ry
<br />Distrkt in "Iolntion of the (~omplnillnnts' ri!:hts; nnrl bllt for tllnt snpport. com-
<br />plainants mi,l:"ht properly pres~ for fill imllledinte ~hllltiu~ down hy InjuTlction
<br />of the l1iv('r~i(ln, ,<:::1\"e :lIlY smnlI p:ltt nef'derl to mnintnin nnvil,:ntion in the
<br />riw'r. In these ('ircllm~tnn('e~ we think they arc enlitlC'Cl to a decree which
<br />will he ('lTpctive ill brin):illJ:: thnt violation find the lI11\\'urrnnted pnrt of tile
<br />divcl'~ion to nn enll. . . ..." M
<br />
<br />The policy question which i~ tlm!' raised is 1I0t :1 new Olle but. it is
<br />a lar,!:!:e Ofle. Th('l ecollomic. vallie of O\lI" st.renms for Hnvi~'nt.ion as
<br />th€" annllal stat,ist,ical l'P.port~ of the Chief of En!!illeel"S m;ke nb'lIn-
<br />dnnt.!:v ekar, is not. nel!lil!ihle. E,'en in the States ,o:rs!. of t,he Mis-
<br />sissippi" !.II(>. amonnt of freight t.hat. is carried 011 fL Sacmmento, n.
<br />Colmnhm. and t,he lowe.r reaches of It ~lissollri cn.nnot he hrnsh~d
<br />1115 27" u.~, ::lr,7 O!l:!O),
<br />"" Jhld. nt 41~, 417 f" ~('e nl"o Nr.I(' Jrrll("rl \.. ;<"1.'10 York. ~S:1 U.R. ~1G, ::lH (1931), a
<br />IIUit to ('njoln I>;rw '\:ork R dlvrrf:\on of wntC'r from Irlhutllrlc!\ ot lhe Dcl:J\vnrp Rh'er: "The
<br />maRtN 1i00l!'l thnt tlH~ nhovr'.Dllmed Irlbutnrle!l of the Dl'lnware nre not nnvlj:nble Wl'Ltl"rA
<br />of the Unlt!'11 ~tnteA . . -. Al"!Oumln.c: thnt rC'lI('f by Injunction still ml.c:ht be proper It
<br />a Allbj;;tontlnl dlmlnuflon within the Jlm1tfl of nu\"h;nbllltv wa.1l thrclItencd . . . he r'311ed
<br />~1I.n. wllne!':!! Gen, G('orge B. PllIl!bllr.v, ASfllfltnnt Chief of F.nl:'lnpl'r!\ rot the U.R Army
<br />who, nltholll:'h not Bpeakln/;' offiCially for the Wnr Deportment, ~ntlj;;fled the IDnstl'r'B
<br />mind that the navl.c:nble r'npQclty of tbe river would not be ImpDlrcd Of conr8e In that
<br />pnrtlcnlnr fill In !lome otllen New York tntell tile risk of the fnture. 'It the War DepD.rt~
<br />ment Rhould In future cbo.nge itA present dlslncllnntlon to Intertere, Kew York would
<br />baYl! to ,.Ield to Itll decision. - ., This will be proTlded tor In the decrP.e."
<br />fi22fiO-Co---c.
<br />
|