|
<br />10
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PE'RTINENT TO PROPOSED WATER RlOHTS Acn'
<br />
<br />aU we nre c'dlcc\ all to clcc:clC' thi!'=. opinion must he understood to be con~ll('d. It
<br />d(l('6 1I01. ;l.'l:telld to t1l(~ (jll.~~ti~n whaetotlH'r ~~lhjcCt!il u~d.er ~f~I\~I.('.Z~;~1J11;~c~I:~c ~~~:~~~
<br />rc within tile CX('IIlSlVC cClllt.rol of ()Il~re~s. or m~y lC CL,., ,L ( .. . f.
<br />~I till' -dls/-rlel' vf 'ill t:ongrcs...ioll:i1 k;.!islatifm; !lor tn the gCllcr:1l qlle:-;tlon 114;\\ . ,~r
<br />~\n~: r;'~\li:L1.iOJ~ of ;, f;uhjl'ct, hy COn.l!;rC!i5, rn:~y he de('il1.l~(i to \V:I'Y,~i(li~lL~I~X~:~~~~
<br />of 'Ill kgishtion hv the Rt:~t.c~ upon the same ~lllJCC . c ((: \' lit tl'
<br />qllt:stiolls' I;cforc li~1 upon what we ~lemn sOllll~1 rr:inciplesC" npp ,IC:~; C 10 it ~~B
<br />p:lrticlIlOlC gllhi.~ct in the Stale in which the leglslat.lon of ollgress H\S e I.
<br />'VC go no fllrth"r.
<br />2. First Iowa. TJwlro-Elrctric CO. operative v. F. P,,c. .(:328 U. S)~2
<br />(I!J4G)). In this cnse the eoopemllve hied lln npphC:ll'lOn on Al',1I1 ",
<br />1941 for a lirense to huild an 8,:300 foot earthen dnm, ,on the Cedar
<br />R' . 10 \"1 f()r ,I inu.t ill<1' wakr thrOlwh nn S-nlllc chvcrSlOn cunnI
<br />Ivcr III \ , ' 'f'" .,..:::0 0 1'1 St, t f I 'a
<br />to n. o\\'crplnnt buill, on the ?VIlSSlS::ilppl Rivcr, le. n, c 0 O\~
<br />inl.crSencd claiming t.hat t.lw coopcl:nJive: shouhl ub.o prcs?n~ srt.ls-
<br />flLr.LOry evidcllce of ilB cOlTlp,lill..l}('c WIth Iowa. In.w, 11.11d ft I?~lnllt. /ol,n
<br />thc Slatc Excellli,'c COIIl/cl1 of 1011'.'1 for tlw s"me pro},r~., fO\\[1
<br />stalulorv poliev as interpreted by t,he Stnt.e, opposed dlvers101 rot'
<br />one river t.o n'n~t,hcr. Bclievin~ that the COl~rts 0 should sett. e t:e
<br />. the FPC ol'dered a dismissll] of the llpphcntlOn for the p",rnllt
<br />lS~,~~illg n determination of t,he vnlidi1.y of the, rCC]lIlrement of :he ~tiLto
<br />f.. The dismissal ,ms arrmned hy \.lw United StllleS COUlt of Ap-
<br />~~~is for the Dist,rict of Columbia (151 F. 21(20) but wns revUl"S~ ~
<br />the Suprcmc Comt, The focol pOInt was sectIOn 9 (b) (1G . . .
<br />802 (b)) whieh reads: ,
<br />SF:C. 4J. That each applicnnt for a liN'llSC herellnder shall submit to the Com-
<br />.' ... ,
<br />mI6~loll.. . . (>\,j(lcnCll that the applicant has complied with thfO'. r~q~lIrc~
<br />(b) s.l.l1sr~c~~\~~ of tile Sbt~ or St.atc-:5 wit-hin \\"hicil the p.rol?oscct ,pro~~ct IS to
<br />~el~)I:l\~~dt~~\/h fC:"pf'C!, to bed :~llrJ l.mnk~ :tll,"l to tile afJPlrop~~llttl()~l, ~I\:~~~n~~ ~ll~
<br />f" f W 'f pllrpO~l'S nnrl With r(':,>pect to L Il' rJ,~ I 0 C,Il"" :-0
<br />b:l~i~C8;.~llf~lc~'~J~~in~, tr:1.lls1Iliti,ill~, :~lld Ji~~riblllill~ P.OW~~I ~n~ In any other
<br />busines~ necessar.... to dTcct th~ purpuses lJr :\ IlCens~ uncltr t \J~ co.
<br />Holdill" that the Stute of Iowl!. could not bloek COIlSt,ruc~101l of the
<br />. \ ~ f' n State permit the Supreme Court s,"d thut to
<br />project ))' re llsmg u , . f 1
<br />ree \lire the COOpcflLt.ive to 5C'Curc the n.c.tllnl grnnt to It? suc 1 a p~r-
<br />mi~ under Stn.te 111W, flS n. condit.ion pr~,eodcnt. t,o ,securmg on. Fcdel~~
<br />license for t.he sume projec.t, U1l<lcr the l' clleral Po,... cr Act, "ould yc
<br />in the Execut.ive Council of lown. n vet.o po\....er over a Federo..l ~:o]ecto
<br />, d I '~ 0 t"tiC:1.tion for n~qUJl'lng' the
<br />If " St'lte Ilermit i~ Hot reqUIre , t ll"lre I:. liD JUS I , . j of the
<br />.... . . "" P I I nit to pn'<:C'lIt e\'I( l"I\CC
<br />et.itioner, a~ n. cOllllitlOll ,of ~ecllrlllg ~ :0; -' l'( i:~a pcr: ': . d '. for 3. State permit.
<br />getitio~er's co!npliallce wI,th, the re~I~I~li~Il~~ll\~i~fct:::i1~tt~\~it~J~ J~'dcral requirements
<br />COmpllllllCe WILli ~tati.' ~~;\~~~lr:te,11 ,:., I.F~~n;e'\an~pl(' ("<)lllpli:llHoC wil,h the St:Ltc
<br />m:J.Y \n'll bloe~ tie e( 1.:1.1, l~l,ll:'l.lH' w'ltl'r of tl1/ Ced,lr Hh'C'\' :111 hc retllrned
<br />TCq\lj!'t'IlII'lll, dl"l'l~''':.l'(I" ;~h?~ ~'l ~ 'l.lI~ cte \\'() 'lid' rl~JlIell t.}H: pro:ect to the ~rnall one
<br />to it at. the lle~r('.,t pl.IlI"."I', '.dc. P 'I' Po'" " e""",,',"".,oll :l.:i l'llcither .dcslr:lblf' nor
<br />'I' I --'I 'c1 by t!t' '" l'r:l I' ",. [Sf, t
<br />,:J:~~ \~:~ ~:, ~, as:l :1: ila~I.~., ~~'.J I'pJi;,tlrt~ \\~;l:dtil~~ r~:~i If ~~~: l~I~~fJl~~~Y~I:~~{ I t:(!~ u ~:~~ncr~~;~
<br />executl\'C COlllll~~I, :l a}" "I~~~:~~I of expenditure,.; th:\t would hUlldicap the ~Ilallclal
<br />~l~~~t'~~P.~f ~S;~II~r~j(~p' J~) IC~111l }~i t~tC~'I:~~t\\ r~~ 1\1 ~r~~ nb~l \~1~~~1 i~d(';~n go~'~~;~~~ i,~\.~~
<br />
<br />be i,:;,";ued IS n procc lire S?,. II Ie., 0 'he other h'l.ncl t,hcrc is ample oppor-
<br />ab~cll{:c cd an c\'pn~,".s IpO\'.1~10C for l~.".O lL t :1dcr the a~th~ritv expre:isly gi\'en to
<br />tunity fur the Fc:d(~r:.ll ,~\\l,r o1l1i~~i~~11~h~.pre.s~ntatiou of c\'idc:lce ,;ati.sfa.ctory
<br />
<br />~~ Y{of~;:~~~~{tit~'l~~~U~~~ll:;;i:~~~~1 witlel any o.f.~.hc rcqUi~d~~~I~t;J~~~pari~~L~t~:~~~l~~
<br />on the ~tate w:l.ters of Iowa that the omml~lon COllSl " Uni-red States,
<br />the. purposes of ll.bFederall,,~~eol}S~b~nr\1~i~~~e~I~~~~ th~~~~~~~d~~~ of this applica-
<br />ThiS eVidence can e re4,u
<br />tion to thc Commilision [pp. 166-167 ,
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PE'RTINENT TO PIlOPOSED WATER RIGHTS Acn'
<br />
<br />11
<br />
<br />'rhe Court determined thllt the detailed prodsions of the Fedcral
<br />Power Act, providing for the Ft~dcral pliLll of rrg'ulut.ioll/ Jcnve no room
<br />or need for cOllflinLing Stl1te cOllt,rols. It is t,ile .Fed('l'ul Power Com-
<br />mi~fo:ion, said tho Court, rather t.hul! the Iowa Executi\'e CoulIcil, that
<br />undo!" 3111' cOlIstil.utiolluI Go...'ernll1(>llt must pnss upon t.hcse issues on
<br />bclHllf of the people of Iowu as well 11S on hehalf of all oth"l"S (pp.
<br />181-182),
<br />Considered in the light ofthc history of (,be origianl Fcdernl Water
<br />Power Act,. S0111e of thc rationllle of the mlljority is difficult to follow.
<br />Sllid M1'. Justice Burton for t,he 111ajorit.y:
<br />Thi~ C:l::;e illusl,rn.tl's the integ-mUon of Frllcr:l.l :lIld St:l.te jurisdictions in licensing:
<br />w:1.terpo\\'er projcr.t!$ under the Fcderal Powcr Act ... . . (p. 15G).
<br />III th(~ Feder:11 Power Act there is 1\ !,':Cp:trat~on of those ~lIbiccts which remain
<br />under t.lle jllrisdictiflll of thc St:l.tc~ [rom t.llGse subjects whic~h t.he COH,,;titlILion
<br />dC:(:,~at('s to lhe (jllitcd St.ltes ;1J)d o'\."('r whiC:l Con;::rcs.;,' l'ests the Fcder:d HJt\"cr
<br />Conl1ni"",ifln wit.h fl.lIthorit,y tn ~t't. To the c'\tellt of this sr:p:lr:l.tion, the Act
<br />cstahlislll's a t1u:\1 sy.::telll of control. The dU:lIity of cancro] cOllsis[.s men'ly of
<br />the dh'j<;ion or the common enterprise hE:twecu two coop(~ratil1g :J.g~>nciL'j of
<br />Goverllln~I\t., c:fl.ch wit.h final :l.uthority in its own jurisdiction. The duality cIoes
<br />not reqllir(~ t.\\'O :lgelleie:" to sh:l.re in the fiu:J.! decision of tile S!lmC i,.:;sue . . .
<br />(pp. lo7-IUS),
<br />Stlid ?vlr. .JusLice Frankfurter in dissenting:
<br />. . oj< But the natioll:J.! policy of w;l.tcrpower developmcnt [ormulatrd b:'o' the
<br />Federal Power Act expliciLly recogllizL's N:g:lrd for et'rt.'l.ill interests of the State"
<br />R8 part or that 11;.J.tiollal policy. Thi" (10('5 llot imply th;l.t general, uncritical
<br />notiolls :J.bOllt so~c:111ed St:J.t.es rights are to be read into what COllgre:-;:; has written.
<br />It docs m'~:l.n th"t \\IC must. adhere to the express congre"sionnl mancl:l.tc th:J.t. the
<br />public interest which underlies the Federn.1 Power Act ill\'oh.e,3: thc protc:ction of,
<br />particulal' ll1:l.ttt'rs of intimate concern to the people. of the St:ltcs in which pro~
<br />posed projects rl'quiring the sanction of the Federal Power Commission a.re
<br />located * .. * (pp, 18:3-184).
<br />3. F. P. C, \", Oregon (349 U. S. 435 (T955)), t.Le Pelton Dam cnse,
<br />involves l1 "rcsC'l'\'iLtiOll."
<br />In December 19;31 t.he FetlcroI Power Conunission decided, in line
<br />with tlw ruc.ommendlltions of it.s c~.;-o..mlner, to grfLllt the flppIic:ltion
<br />of the POl'tlnnd GeIlc!':!.! Electric.; Co. for It licrllsc to const,rllct and
<br />oprrat(\ the Pelton project/ desigllttted lLS projoct No, ~030, OIl t.he
<br />D('sdl([tl~S Riv0r in.Tl'l'ferson County', Oreg. Sl~l~:;r '" >jo Portland Gen-
<br />erol Eleclric Co, " . . (10 F, P. C, 445 (19;;1)). The COlllllli8sion
<br />noted j,!iat. the high dam wOlll(l oc:cupy lands 11IH1 a l"l'S('l'v;1tion of
<br />t,he Ullitcll States; that the ]lrojl'ct pr'ob"b]y \I'.,S the mnst readily
<br />.av/1ilablc sow'(:c of IlC\'." power in. t.hai. are:1; tilllt 0.. seYCI'e shol't.ngc of
<br />POWCJ' jn thnt region '\-ns n. mntkr of Ilnt,ionnl concerlI (p. 448). It
<br />saill the roeol'll support,cd the finding- of the rX:1miner t,llll.t a rel'cgnlfl.t-
<br />ing dalIl tlowllsLl'cu,1ll would pl'ot(;cL dowll:stl'cum illt.erest.s; that frsh..'ry
<br />interests v..-ould be pl'ot,ectecl nde(]t1tLt.rly bl~t'n.tJsc upst.ream irrirrfltiOll
<br />diversions alrcn.dy hn.d depIcted flow in the uppc'r reaches and thereby
<br />Jimitl'd the Ilutural food present for filwerlinrrs in. that urea The
<br />opinion thus h!tsC's t,he license primmoily on n the public lUl~d and
<br />reservation aspect. of t.he Commission's licensing power.
<br />It llppenrs tllllt the primllry objection of Ore~on wus based on the
<br />fishery problem. See Oregon v. F, P. C, (211 F~ 2d 347, 340 (1954)).
<br />The Stllte objected t,hat the compl!.nyhlld flliled to obtllin a permit from '
<br />the Hydro-Electric Commission of Orl'gon; t,hll(', within ccrl..in limi-
<br />tations, the sov.ereignty of Oregon extends to the control of waters
<br />located therein; thllt Congress had seplll"llted the title to the lllnd from
<br />
|