|
<br />"
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />'FEDERAL WATER lllGHTS LEGI~LATION
<br />
<br />7
<br />
<br />The basic isslle in First {owa flyrlro,Elealrie Oooperati1Je v. Federal'
<br />Po'weT 00111.7ni.')8io71., the third of the cases not.ed above, was whether 0.'
<br />divcrsion of water from t.he Cedar River, !I navig:Vble st.ream in Iowa,'
<br />could be elTecwd under !I Federnl Power Commission license without a
<br />permit from the State. This in t.urn involved t.he question of the me!ln-,
<br />mg and elfect. of scchon 9 of the Federal Power Act, the pertinent part'
<br />of which reads thlls: '
<br />
<br />. . . f'Dch npl,!icnnt tor a license hereunder shall submit to the commlsslon-"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />. the petitluller'8'('Olupll:lIH:e with the rNJIlII'CIIl(lllh'l of the Strite coliC' for :1 Slate
<br />l'erll~lt. COIllJtllaUl~l' with Slale 1"1''1l1ircllIC'llls Illllt un' ill conlliet with Fl'tll'rul
<br />rl'lIl11,n-'llIl'llts Il~ay well hhK'k tile J.'t'(ll'I'llllicl'lI~l'. For ('xalllple, cOlllplialll'(' with
<br />till!. Stlllp rt'1111IJ"t'IIlCnt . . . !lInt the walC'f of the Cl,tlnr Hiw.'l" nil hC' n'lllrllCll
<br />to l,t n~ Iltr- 1l('.:I!.('t-:t prll\:tiellhll! pl;l('c would l"t'dUt'e the Ilrujl'd tn rhe ~1ll:lll vile
<br />winch I~ l'lnsslllcrl lJ,V tIll' Fl'dl~I'nl Powl'l' COllllllif-i~iOIl ns "lll'itlLc!' d(,~jruhle 1I0r
<br />ndt'1IUlI!C." ~illlilnl'lr, t'OIllI,Ii:IUCt:.' with the l'llgill('criug' I'I'quin'llll'ut:-: of t!Jc.
<br />Stllfe J"'Xl>l~Utl\'l' COli IlciI , if lllhlitional to or tliffel'ent from the F'etlernl n'quire-
<br />1~1~lItfl,. lIla,~ wr'll r('!,;ult ill dllplklltiOIl,<; of eXp('llllitllr('~ tlmt \\'011111 hlludicap the
<br />tin,nnelnI ~~lI'r'('~s ~f tht. !)roje<'t, COJlljlIinlll'e with rf'IjUirerllC'llt!ol for a pcrmit
<br />t1ldt I~ 1I'.Jt to be l:-s11f'(l IS II )11'0<.'(-<1111'(' so futile tllllt it ('llIl1l1)t be imlll1tecl to
<br />Cnrll,,:Te<;s III 'lIP lIhs('IIt'e of :]11 ('xprf'!o;s )l]'u\'isillll fOl' it ,""
<br />~hC\ a:llt.lIOI'~ of the F'cderal P(l\H')' Act, 11(' 'ri:'nt 011, knew how to dis.
<br />tlllg'IIlSh hd.\~.l'ell those HI:lt,tC'l'~ \\"hieh they Wt'l"c ll':l\'ing to the :-)tate
<br />nnd those whleh t;hey W('.I'('. tlll'Jllllg m'eL' to the Commission. In section
<br />27 of the act., for IlIsl'anee, they distillct.ly 1'1'0\'illed:
<br />Thnt Ilot~lin); hNl"ln eontnlnro shall lIe cOllstru('d .ns nffeC'ting or lut('udin,:;' to
<br />fitTed OJ' IIlllny Wfl~. to intel'fC're with the laws of the re!'JlPdi\"f' Rt:lt/;'s l"('lntlnc
<br />. to tile el.m.trol. :lllproprilltion, use, or (Jistriblltion of w:ller 11 sC'tl " i~ lrrignti,;n or
<br />. for 1II11melpnl or otiler l1S~. or fillY n~:ted ri~ht ncquil'('d UlC'rcin 11_
<br />thllS employill/,( lallgllage similal' to that of ,edioll 8 of the Reclama-
<br />tlOIl Ad of ] iJ02:
<br />
<br />(1.1) Sntisfactory evidence tllnt the applicant bns complied with the reo
<br />quirf'llwnts ot the Inws of t.he State or St.!lt('~ within wblch the l)rOposed
<br />projt!ct is to be loented with re~lled to . . . the appropriation, diversion.
<br />aud nse of water for powpr purpos.cs _ . _.n
<br />The Commi"ion dismissed an applieation for a license on the ground
<br />that thc applicant had not presented the evidence required, explaining
<br />t.hnt it did Ro bee:l.lIse t.he validit.y of the Iowa laws was in quest.ion
<br />and ehould he jlldieially settled before it, proceeded further." The
<br />applieant. took the case to the Court of Appeals for (,he Dist.rict of
<br />Colllmbia which sllstailled the Commission's decision. The Supreme
<br />COIlrt, re'"el'sen,
<br />The Iowa laws in qllest.ion not, only forbade the eonstrllction of
<br />any dam wit.hout a permit from t.he State's Execntive Council but
<br />prm'ided, in effect, that the eoullcil should issue" pennit. only if it
<br />fonnd, nmollg other thing-s, that. "any water taken from the stream
<br />in connection wit.h the project [will be] returned t.hereto nt t.he nearest
<br />practicahle place" '" '" "'.l"
<br />In sllbstanee, t,he COllrt held that this provision in part,iculnr, Rnd
<br />other prm'isions of Iowa law to which it. alluded more generally, were
<br />inoolllpntihle wit.h \'Urions provisions of t.he Federal Power Act,
<br />especially that. pro\'idingt.hat lieen"ed projects- '
<br />~IHlIl !If' ~nf'h fig in the jl1rl::nnt'nt of the Commls~ion will be best ndnpted to a
<br />eOnlpre-hensil"e plan (or Improving or de,eloplng n waterway or waterwnys lor
<br />th~ U<=(!o or bri>nri>fit ot interi'ltnte or foreign commerce, for the imllro\"em{'nt ond
<br />lltili7.ntion ol wnterpcm't'r rlevelopme-nt. and :tor other hpneftclal rmbllc uses,
<br />In('llldin~ re-crentionnl purposes IU_
<br />and werc therefore snperseded -by the Federnllaw: th!lt. to the extent
<br />that thev were snperseded section iJ(b) of the Federnl Power Act
<br />did not re~uire '" showing of eompliance with them; n~d that the~-
<br />fore t,he Commiesion should have proeeeded t.o determme the merits
<br />of the cooperative's !lpplicat,ion for !l1icense. .
<br />Mr. .Tnshee Burton, wrihng t,he mnjority opinion of the Court, s!lld:
<br />To rNllllr(' tht' lX'titlonf'r to ~e-Cllre the ndllnl j::Mlnt to It of n State permit
<br />. . . llf'l. n ronditlon prl'cNlent to se('urlnl: n Ferlernllieense for the flame project
<br />under the Fe-dernl Pow{'r Act would ,pst. In the F.xE'!cutive Council of Iown a
<br />'"ero pun-f'r OYf'r the Fedf'iI11 project. Such n veto power en~ny could destroy
<br />the f'ff'pr"fjl'"enf's!': ot' the F{'(](>inl net. It \\"olllrl rmbordinnte to the control of the
<br />StAte the "comprehem;;ive" plnnnl"", which tbe Bct provides sholl depend t1flOD
<br />the ilufl!mri>nt or thf! Federnl I'ow{'r COmml1'lRlon or other representattves of the
<br />Fcd~rnl Government.p .
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />~hc ~fTl'ct of ~ 27, in prOh'c!ln~ state Inw.<; froll! ~nl)('r:-('durc, is limitcu to
<br />Ia\\;, flS to ~h? control.. i1lll'rOprwtlon, lise, or rlistrihution or water in irri::ntion
<br />or or 1ll1JnI(:lpal or othri>1' USri>S of the samc nat\ll'C" It th('rdnrc has [lrilllnr:r
<br />if 1.10~ ex~I~.I:-;lw~, reference to s\1ch prnfll'i~tary rjght~, . . . There i~ nothing" i~
<br />!1l(n~).lrn...]'I~Jh to" sl,,''c"J.:'e:-;t n br~nrl{'r scope unless it be the wOI'cls "other ll!O;cs,"
<br />~~I ,(' wC,)~(lJ'i. h.~'\\t"~r"nr~' el)~ltllll't1 tn rights; of the Sfll1l(' nature:1:-; thnt relating
<br />t t.he ll"e of. \~ ,Iter In Irl'I~:ltwll or for 1Il1illidpal plII'pII:-;('s. This. wal;:-O held in
<br />on early ~Ir-cISIl/n by on rlistrict court. . . . wlH"re it W:i.!'l stntNI that "n I,roper
<br />. ('(lIl~trnr:lH~Tl ~~ lh~ net requires t,hnt. the 'Won1s 'other nses' .<;1Inl1 he con.."trued
<br />e~\1sdem ,C"111('1 IS With the words 'Irrigntion' nnd 'municipnl'" (...\ lalJallla Pou;cr
<br />Co, \'. GlIll j'OlCcr CfJ" 283 F. GOG. Glf))"S!I
<br />
<br />Sed ion f), on the ot.her hnnd, "dot's not itself require tompliance with
<br />nil)' State laws":
<br />
<br />C Ilq ~'e~erence to ~t.nte ll1w~ is h;\' way ot sU,l{~e!'tifJn to the Ferlernl Power
<br />nlJlIl,lI~SllJn ~f !'llbJects n~ ro whicll tile COIumls:-;inn mny wIsh sOllie ro~t
<br />subllllUell to It of .the n.pplicunt's prOA'ress, Tile e\"itlellce rerluiretl is deS('~ib(>d
<br />merc-~~', n~ th:l~ whwh .shnll he "~nlisf:lctor:o." ro the Comlllls~ion. The )leed f(",r
<br />COlllp l,lIl('C With uppllf'nble Stnte In\\"s, if nur, nris('s not from rhis Federal
<br />statute but from the eITecli\'ellri>'ss of the Stute stntutC!03 tbelllSel\"l:'s.U
<br />In F('dcl'al Pow~r (}ommi,r.;slol1 \', Or('gon there was again conflict
<br />b.C':tween ~h~ ~omllllsslol~'s all(l the State~s licensing flllthol'ities, This
<br />t].~"e,. ho\\ e\ CI, a llonna"lga~le stream, rather than n navig:l ble stream,
<br />\\,)S lllvolr~~d. ~lld the ,<lUes-tlOn a)'ose concerning t.he cffec.ti\.C'I1rss of n.
<br />. ~t~te prollllHtlOn ng:llllst CO'Ilst,l'1let.ion of a darn which would intcr-
<br />elel "I~h tllO JIlo\"emellt of annol'omous fish without the approval of
<br />anI a license from t)le Stnte, The case dirlnot ill\"ol\'e water riO'hts
<br />c? such, but the haslc argument of the Stllte, as snmmnrizecl b/'the
<br />" Lon:i\\"ns that, the"acts o.f July 26, 1866, ,Tuly n, 1870, !lnd the Deselt
<br />an. . ct. of 1877. eonstltute !In express congressional delegation or
<br />COIl\e-)nIH~_e to t.he State of the power. to regu1nte the lIse!l of the waters
<br />
<br />,. Ihld. at 160 t.
<br />:;~8Shnt.l077,~6 U,S,C, 821.
<br />P01DC; Co~~mn~~~:~ t~ Jr~:i::~e1~~~~~t W~f:l hOl~IDg was ,considerably Qualified In Federal
<br />where the Court snld'tha.t th . wcr orpO,.ahoB, 347 U.:'i. 239, 256 (1954)
<br />ctIble to proprietary water rlg~t~rtOoVrI8ptg~eof section 27 relating to "ellted 1'1I:'htll "Ill al'lplt~
<br />ullea." r purpoaea as ""ell [Ill tbose tOr other proprll'tar;
<br />,. Ibid. at 177 t,
<br />
<br />It n ~tate permit I~ not required, there tR no justttlco.t1on tor requlrlnJr the
<br />petitionf'r, R~ a condition of ~uring Its .Federal perml~ to pr~~Dt evidence of
<br />IS Art...f "Tlln.. tn. 1920. .1.8tnll08~, 18 U"S.C_ ~02.
<br />-:l2~U.R.atlfJ2. .' . .
<br />.. Art of .Tllnr. 10. 1920, II(,C. 10(a), 41 Stat. 1088. all amended, 18 D.R.C. 803(a),
<br />. ~2R U.R, nt 1114.
<br />
|