Laserfiche WebLink
<br />24 <br /> <br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION <br /> <br />conclusion thnt., at. least. wit.h respect. t.o the nnvigable portions '" of <br />streams, the United StMes has such full control that no private <br />rights can be acquired in t.hem which are good against it and that, <br />therefore, eompensat.ion is not. eonstit.ntionally required t.o be paid <br />regardless of t.he purpose for which they are t.aken. <br />. It should be noted, however, t.hat. in what we may refer to as t.he off- <br />brand eases-viz, those in which navigation is found to playa very. <br />remote part. at. beslr-there has beeu a strOlw t.endeney in the COlllt to <br />find that Congress did not intend to claim t.he benefits of the servitude <br />or to deny the landowner or wnter rights owner full compensation for <br />what was taken from him even t.hough it mi~ht perhaps have doneso.10ll, <br />Such, ill sllhst.ancc, were the holdings in F01,d v, l.Julc F(111.~ Fibre <br />Oompa.mj,"0 whero t.he question WflS whether t.he Federal Power Act <br />authorizes a liceusee to enlarge its prodnction by installiug tlash <br />boards which diminish t.he etrective head of au upst.ream power plant <br />wit.hout. payment of compensat.ion; l-ntcrnational Paper Gompr11lY V.. <br />Vnited Staies,'U where the Government had in effect requisitioned the <br />plaintitT's water rights in order to increase l'owe.r production for wnr. <br />time needs; United States v. Gerlach Live Stoe1, Coml'any,'" where' <br />tho question was one of compensation for ripnrinn rights, good under" <br />State Jaw, which were destroyed hy t.he const.ruction of Friant Dam, a <br />feature of the Central Valley Federal reelalllat.ion project; and Fed- <br />eral Power Oom.11~ission Y. Niagara Alohawlc P01cm' OorlJora.tion,llS <br />where t.he quest.ion was whether the Federal Power Act forbade the <br />company to tuke account of tI~e costs incurred by ~t in ,conncctio!l w}th. <br />the use of anot.her's water rIghts when comput.lI1g Its amort.lzatlOn <br />reserve. <br />Helice, thuugh n. holJinO' of noncompensability is nlwn.ys 0. pos- <br />sibility, it seCIl1:-; so remote tiUlt, cOllsidcl'in~ t.he state of confusion and. <br />the cont.roversial nature of the closely related powe.r sit.e valuat.ion <br /> <br />10& cr. Uou).:la!'l, J., dIR~entlnJ;, in Qrnnd Rh'cr Dam Authority v. Orand Hydro, 335 U.S. <br />3{'j!), :1';::;11 (HHS): "The c:>.c1llsh"f! control whlcb the Unlt{'d Stnte9 hUR In the water- <br />pl).....er of R IlR\"Ig-alJle stream. . . extends to the wnterpowl'r of II nonnn\"lgnhle stream <br />where prh'ute cummand oyer It I~ tncun:-;i:;'tcnt with the Federal prOJ;r:l111 of cuntrol over <br />DD\"Ig-lltlou. U'lit('l{ States v. Willow N.it=cr Co., 3::l4 U.S. 490, [tOD., Fcde~ul rl'J;:"ulaUon. <br />nlHI conlrul has the S:lme l'!1'IlCf In each ca><('. O~.:{llhoma \'. Atchl.!OFl Co., 313 U.S, 508. <br />Jj25." <':ompflrt' UtlUt'd StOtC.1 c~ reI. TC""08CC \-'al/cII Authority \'. Powel.!on, 31D U.S. <br />260,27:l Il!H3) where tILe COllrt, ~peaklng' throug-b Mr. Justice Douglas, bat! lpft this <br />Que:-;tlulI Olu'[J: <br />..It I~ IIrl;lIed on hehalf of petitioner thllt even thouJ:"h the nhmBf'ee nlver Is nonIlnvl. <br />goble thruughout thl:-; Il:\rt of ltll course. compensntlon for the lOBS of nny SlIllposed power <br />\"11111<,' 1:-; IHl morl! Ilcrllll:-;:-;Iblf! thnn III Calle tl! n navlC:llble RtrelUn. It b pointed out tbat <br />Vnitcd f;trrtc/J \'. Chllllrfla.lJll/lbar Co, . . . held that ther!' Is 'no prh'nte pr9perty In <br />tbe lI'Jl\" of a nll\'II::a\'ll(' f'tream. . . . Anti It I" contcndf'd thllt nltholl.c:h the Hlwn!'l!'l{'fl <br />Rher I.. nl'lIn.1\"I)::"nhlc lit thl' poInt" In Qll{"!"tl,'n, thc flow 01 thol<{" plllCl's hll" such a dIrect <br />Bnd Imllll'dl:1tl' elTl'ct UllOll till' nn\'Ij:<Ible portion (I! the r[\'er farther downstream as to <br />j::1\'e t11l~ Unlh'l\ Stalt's the !<:lInc ph:lL;lry Ct'lltrol O\"N 1:I0th the nrl\'Il:::I1ole anll nonnnvl,l::"nble <br />porth.n" of the rln'r . . ., lhf'rl'b)' hrill,::in!; Into pin)' the rule of the Chandler,Dunbar <br />ca~e. Cf. U,lilCtl SII/tc& v. J':cl!", ~43 U.S. 3111. llut we do oo~ I.ltl~p to COllslder that <br />qllf'''tloll. F,'r If Wl.' a"!<lImp, wlthnnt df'(~ldlnl::. thn! rlc:ht!l In the flow of 0 l1unnnvlgllblc <br />strellll1 cre.1tcd by Incal lnw or+> IlrO[le-rty for which the Unlled States must pay campen- <br />~otl(lll wllrn It ('nnd.'RIII!! th(' Inllll!" or thl' rl[larl:1n owner, tbe waterpower \'alue which <br />re"po'ulent "nu!:ht to e!ltnbll<;b [still] cannot be nllowed." <br />Jw.see United Statc~ v. Twi,. Cfty POlDer Co., .upra. Dote 90 at 225: "The leglsl.o.ttve <br />blsforr nncl conlltructl(ln or pllrllculnr f'nlletmenls mny lend to the conclu~lon that Con. <br />Gress 'ext'rclried le5.!l Ihlln ItH constltutlonol power, fell Rbo!'"t ot opp!'"oprlntlDj; the How <br />or thl' rh'er tn Ih(' publle domnln, nnd pru\'lded thnt private rlghtll existinG' under State <br />',w.l-l1oll\l1 be compensable or otherwise recog-nl7.ed, Such WE're Unilclt St(ltC& v, Oerrac" <br />Live Stock Co, . . . aDd Fede"aL POWe,. Comfnisdon v. Niagara JIohaUlk Powe,. Oor- <br />pOI'llli')" . . .... <br />110::!:'lO U.S. 3(\0 (111:10). <br />1H 2R2 U.S. ;:m9 (1931). <br />J1! Supra notc 1)1. <br />:IU 347 U.B. 239 (1954\, With thlfl rue. compRre Niagara Pal'" POUler 00. "'. Federal <br />POlDer Commi8aiOft, 137 F. 24 787 (C.C,A. 24, 1943), cert. den, 320 U,9. 792 (1843). <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />FEDERAL WATER mGHTS LEGISLATION <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />quest.ion'" and the protection which is alrC<Hly given to est.ablished <br />consumpti\'o lI~(>S by such provisions as section 27 of the Federal <br />Power Act and sed ion 8 of the TIecl:lI11at.ioll Act. of 1!l02, it. is. donotf'1I1 <br />whet.her any ovemll attempt. to solve it in the sort of lell'islat.ion that <br />is now being considered is ncee..'3sary and whet.her it 'Would not be more <br />of an impediment than a. help in dealing with the more immediate <br />problems with which that. legislat.ion is concerned."'" <br /> <br />CO:STROL OVER UNAf'f'nOrnrATED WATEns <br /> <br />The lengt.h of the foregoing disellssion is not intendeu t.o indicate <br />a belief that. t.he nayig:tble streallls doctrine is the sonree of all prob- <br />lem" in the Fcdcml-State water rights tield. Othcr problems-proh- <br />lems which provably provoke even more invccti\'e than those in t.he first <br />group-arc t.hose which are often spoken of as if their answers turned <br />on the answer to t.he furt.her question, as it is sornet.imes put, of who <br />"0""118" t.he mmppropdated waters of t.he We~tern States. <br />This qucst.ion is virtually tman:;wel'ablc. It is unfortunate t.hat the <br />terms "propert.y" and "ownership" e\.er Grept into the English lan- <br />guage as dcseript.iollS of an,)" gm'erllTIlcnt.al interest in or power o\'er <br />the waters of its streams, whet.her the governmcnt. in quest.ion he t.he <br />Federal GO\.Cl'llmellt or a State, It. is only by a ::;pecieH of poetic li~ <br />cense t.hat. we apply sueh te.rms as (.hese to fugiti,'e stuff like water <br />before it is rcdueed to possession,115 The .'more or less attenuated <br />residunm of title t.hat t.he State may be said to possess," was Mr. .Jus, <br /> <br />III This prublem. In brh,r, Is whcthrr nllow:lllc(> 19 to be made In condrmnntlon ncllons <br />nnd In (H.lII1IIlI~tratln' dl~terD1luatlon!'l of n utlllty's rnte base and nmortLt:'\tlou r.:'serre <br />lHlucr lhe F'.'IIl.'ral POWI't" Act for the \"ollle of Itll watcr rij:;ht~ or ({,r n s[ll'clal ,'nlne <br />attllchlnp; to iff; Innd hceausc or Its lI!';('fulnl:'s!I !or a h~'droelcctric pl.1nt. Thl:;; hns b{'en <br />n matter of quitc jH':Jted di~pute bdwecll the lD<ljorltlcs alul tilt. minorities l)f tllt! Cuurt <br />In ('ueh ot tl'l! Ihr('t! ca~cll thllt ha\"e t'l'cn brrore It III rccl'nt \"ear;:!. Gr,,"d Rit'cr Dam. <br />J!llthQrilll v. GUl/II1 Jl7,rlr.), .!lIpra, Ilot(' lOR: }.'cl/crlll l'oIQt:r COIll,nillllio11 v. Ninf}orfl jfohnlnk <br />Power (;ol'pnmtiOII. Imp,./l, llote 113, nnd UllitCll StatcR \". 7'u1ill City /'olcer Co. supra <br />1l0tl~ :'0. In till.' lirst of the:.c, It .....<1:-1 held Ihat the !'.edernl l'rower Ad doe~ n,)t preclude <br />n Stat", COllrt froID IHlmlttlll!-: cvtdt'IIC~ nt power l<lte value In n COnUelllllatlOO action <br />brought by 0. Fl'tlcrlll liCClllit'C where the ltcens~(' diti not re-Iv 011 F('d~r;ll emlll('nt d{,wain <br />nll.thorit;v. In thll t;'1'('tlnd. It WIHI h('ld thnt the net did nl;t wlpc out the '{"nlue ot pre- <br />t'XI....t1Il~ water rl~lit!" and tlint ullc..wallce for pa,rmcnts made (or the use of ~\Ich rl,!:'hts had <br />to 1,1.' p,'rmlt\ell t,y the Felll'rnl l'ower CumUlIsslulL 1n lh'~ :!eClJllntln!: r,'('orl! l,t thc liernsee. <br />III tILt' th1re!. thl! hOl'ling WitS that the C}mmllcr,Du'lllflr rulll pr,~c1uull,; the sllPeilll value <br />wh~1I thl! UlIltl'u 1-;tntes It",'lt is tllo' cond"mnor. Thl:'I<e thn'c c:t"c~ Illu...trate, but do <br />not l'xhanst, the rnlll-:c or (ple...llon~ Invoh'ed III the power "lte vUlulltl,)O problem. The <br />t1llTcn'ucc1< In result 11\ the!<e caHNI nrp such thnt olle 1:1 tempted to say, with the late Prot. <br />'I'homa!; n~~d Powell, If I remember his ulctum correct1.\.. th:l.t "'nf't\\(','n flny two en."l!s <br />thf're l!l IIlwnYR <!11l'Uj.:h or a dlrf"rence to mllkC' II dlfTer~nee If the Court wnnt:l to see the <br />din-l'n'lIce." It may be DIlled, howc\"Cr, that l,r the [our m{'wh{'r~ of the Court who par. <br />t1clpnted In 1111 thrl'C CII"I'I:I two (Rurton nnll Fr.1Hkrllrtcr, .1.1.) vot"d C'oll~I~lentl\" to <br />oll<lw th~ spr'cJIII \'lIllle III1U Iwo (Dnllg"lns IInd DI.1ck. J.T.) voted consistently to dls::lllow <br />It. Four nlhl'r mem\'lrr!l portlclp.1tetl only In thl' 1irf't or these thr!'e C:\!"I':I: Chlcf ,lll<;t1C~ <br />Vln!lo/l Ilnd Mr. JlI~tice ,lacks'1Il thcre voted to nllow the specIal value, Mr. JusllcQ <br />Murphy and :\Ir. .Ju:-tice Hutlcd,c:e to exclude It. :o.lr. Jusllce HCl'rl p:lrtlclpat~d In tbe <br />Cir"t anti thlrrl CIlH''': he '\"otf'd to IIHow In the firllt, to exclude in tbc tblrd. Tbe same <br />chllng-e of votrs Is rl~corded for Chid JIlRtlCC \\'nrren nnd Mr. Ju"t1ce Clork who pnrlicl- <br />plltf'd In the :o:eeond nnd third Clllle!':. Mr. Ju!':tice Minton, 00 the ot!l(lr hand, voted to <br />excllltl~ In thl:' tieconu. nod to Include In the third. Mr. JURtlce I1nrlan ,"otrd to lacluJe In <br />tbe third, the ollly Olll! or the three cnses In which bc pnrtlclpntl'd. <br />LJU It flhould be noted. however. tbat the BIlg",I1.f'stlons mode hNenrter In IWC. 2(b) ot the <br />drnft o( bill np[ll'mll'd tl1 thIs memornndum hn\"e cOll81dernble relllt10n to the problem with- <br />out nttemptlng to furnish an entire solution. <br />'I' ct. the ur/:"llll1pnt uf ""1l1ll>l,~1 fo!'" CullrorDIo. OB summarized hy the reporter In .d.r~(J11a <br />v. California. ~upra!:l1. at -t:~3: <br />"Arlr.onll d{Hlt4 not claim to OWQ tlle runolo~ wnter, oor could she do !.l0. Only Buch <br />water ns III tuken into pu.%e5810n and control III Bubject to ownership, Control or these <br />woters Is on r!xerclse of the police power, wb[ch III anotber term tor the power or govern. <br />ment. . . . It IR nn ~xerclf;e ot political power, . <br />"The right ot the Un1ted States to exercise control over the Colorado RIver tor Improv~ <br />meDt ot navlJ:'otlon or'otherwh.e III alllo the exercise ot political power. ... It Is thus <br />a conOid between the political power of the State and the' political p~wer of the Nation." <br />