<br />14
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PERTTh'l'.lNT TO PROPOSED WATEIR RIGHTS ACT
<br />
<br />i8 p.al iHficd when the owner is p:lid for what is tn.kcn fr.om ~!m. The quest.ion is
<br />Wh:lL has the owner lost, and not whn.t hIlS the 1:1.kcr gUlncd. Boslon Chamber of
<br />Commerce v. lJoston (217 U. S. 180, 10.1, 1!1,5).
<br />Furl.her, the courl. "nid thfit if the "rimfiry purpose of the "reject wns
<br />leo'it.imn.te, it could see no sOllnd oblectlOn to ICfismg l?owcr In excess of
<br />the needs of the Unil.ed Sl.nt,es (p. 7:1). Therefore, Chnndlc.r-Dunbar
<br />could not be heard to object to selling excess power proposed to .be
<br />developed in conncetion with works for cont,rollmg or illlprOVIng
<br />navigation. .
<br />5, U S. v. Gerlach Li"e Stock Co. (:13n U. S, 725 (\9.50)) ~nvoh'cs,
<br />to n Inr"e cxt,enl, not only the historienl development of Cuhforma
<br />\Ynter l;w but 1I1~0 the hi'storicul development of the Centml Vnlley
<br />project, ) ST'
<br />Gerlnch owned ullcontrolled grnsslnnds nlong-.... t 1e nn. OflfJlIlIl
<br />Ri\~cr which dcpclH.lcd upon sensonnl f1ooclmgs. }.nflnt Dum put un
<br />end t.o t.lH'SC ~prillg inundations which Gerlach cln.InlCd compensable
<br />as ripl1l'il1n ri~hts. . .
<br />The United Stutes uppeal's t.o huye wllhngly compensated some
<br />riparian owners for similnr losses .of no~dwfLtCl'S on thClr gl'~sslunds
<br />but refused to compensute ot.hcrs, llleludmg Gerlnch, eontcudmg that
<br />the project had been authorized under the eommercc powc: os a
<br />measure for control of nuvigation. Gerlach ond the other clumumts
<br />eon tended tl",t. the constrnction of Fr;"nt Dam and the consequent
<br />taking of Sun .Ton'luin water right.s had nO purpose or ef[eet except
<br />irrignt;on ond reelnmut.ion (1'.731).. . "
<br />The Supreme COlII't noted thnt the enrhes~ congresslOnnlleglslahon
<br />on the Centra] Vnlley project had deelnred It to be for the purposes
<br />of improving nnvigat.ion, fegulat.mg flow, and pl'oVldmg stor~ge for
<br />wutrr (50 Stnt. 844, 850; 54 St.nt. 1\98, 119D-17~0). 13ut, It olso
<br />Dot0.<.1 that Congress hlld expressly "reuuthorlzed. the projects o.11d
<br />had pro\'idcd t.llflt they should libe reimbursable in ucconlance With
<br />the rcelulllution laws" (p. 732).. '
<br />The o,'crllll project consist.~d of 3S major dnms, hundreds of Illlles
<br />of mail cnnnls und other project \\"orl~s. A f~l'nHlh1 for canst I uctlOll
<br />was approved by the Pr('~idcnt by wllJch mlll~.lple-pl1rpose dnms were
<br />.the respons;bilil,y of tho 13ureau of Reclnmnhon .md dnms und other
<br />works for flood control were t.he rf'spOIlSlblllty of th~ Army cnglllcl'Fs.
<br />.Thc cnt.ire Friullt. nllcl Snn .Joaquin projects at fill tunes wer(' nclmm-
<br />istcrcd by tbc Burrau. The o~'igi[1l11 pbn~ cidlcd for purchnse of
<br />wnter rirrhts and included an c~tlllllllc of their cost. .
<br />. 'Ve d7-., not believe it is ('s~ent.iltl to review here the lust.ory of
<br />CnJifornin \\'uter lu\\' nnd t.he applieat.ion of the Fedel'lLl desort 1und
<br />laws. IIomcst.efld Ad" a.lld frd!lmution la.ws fis.set out. by t;he ~l1prrme
<br />Court. The discussion most nnport,l1nt to L,llIS prescnLn.t~on 111\'01\"('5
<br />the qucstion of thc n:lvign.tion servit.ude and the que~tlOn of com:
<br />prIlsfition for wuter rights ,"csted under State In.w. - SaId the Court.
<br />We thillk it clear that throughout the conccp.t.ion, enactment, and subsequent
<br />administration of the plan, Congress ha.s recogmzed the property statu!; of water
<br />rights vested under California law. .
<br />It is not to be doubted that the totality .of ~ plan so compr?henSlVe has some
<br />legitimate relation to control of inland navlg~tlO~ or that pn.rtlCular compOl.1cnts
<br />may be described wit.hout pretense as navll;at.lOn. and fl~od-co~trol pro]e.~ts.
<br />This made it appropriate that Congress should ]ustlfy makmg thiS undc.rta~lDg
<br />a national burden by genera.l reference to its power ove.r commerce and naVlgatIon.
<br />
<br />t
<br />I
<br />;
<br />!
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PETITINE= TO PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS ACT
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />The (;nvernmc~nt. c01lt~llr1~ that the o\.'emll eleclnrution of pl1rpOSI~ is applicable
<br />to Fri;lllt. Ihlll :111(1 rel;llL-d irrh.::d,ioll faeiliLic.5 :IS nil illl(:~r:tl P:lrt. of "\\'hl\1. C(Jll~
<br />grc::-::i qllil(~ prop,:rh. tl'l':Itl'cl :l."i :~ Illlit.." Ad\.(~rlill~ to Ullill'd Stutes v. II-'il/ow
<br />Nil'a CII. (:J~.J u. 's. .1~1!J); {illited ."'talr.'l v. CIIIIllllo,fnre I'urk (:;2-( C. R. 3S0);
<br />United Slalf:s v. ..lpW~/f/cltian POll'Cr Co. (:n 1 U. S. 377); Unitcd Stllte," v. Chundlcr-
<br />Dunuar Co. (22~) U. S ;)3), t.he f:ovcl'lllllent rfllir:s on t.he rule th:lt. it dOf'.s. llot
<br />h~ve 1.0 cornpclls:ltc for (Jt.::itruct.ioll of rip:tri:\ll intl:rc)';l:-; over which ~lt the point
<br />of conflict. iL h:\~ :J. superior 1l;1.vigatio!l l':l:-icm('llt. thc l'\crci"iC' of which occ:\..,;ions
<br />th~ d:l1l1~ge. And irrl~l:ilH'cli\"C of di\"i::-ibilit.y of the entire Cl'lltr:l.l V:l.IJey llnder-
<br />t.aking, Ow Co\"(:rnlJ1l~nt contl'llds t.h:1.t Fri:l.l1t Dam illvol\"l:s :l. me~surc of flood
<br />cOIlt.rol, an elld which is ."cnsiuly related t.o control of lHwig:ltion (Oklahoma v.
<br />Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. ..:iQS).
<br />Clniln:~lll", 011 the ot.her hand, mgf' tklt. at least the Fri:l.nt D:~rn project \l":lS
<br />wholly \1nrd:\t~r1 to n:\vi~:Ltioll ends :md COllIe{ not he contrOlled by {.lIe general
<br />congrc.';5ion:\1 dr:d:\r:lf,ic'l\ of pnrrose. They point, ont. t.h:\t, :l.1t.JH)ll.~h definitions
<br />of nnvi.~at.ioll !lave' beell e....p:llHicd (UllI'led Slafes v. .'lpprdllchiflll POll'a Co.,
<br />sllpm), in every instance in which t.hi~ COllrt. h.'ls dt~lli..-:!cl cOlllpellsati')1l fur tl('pri\.a~
<br />tion ('If rip:~riall ri:.(hts it 1m!=; sppciflc:llly Boted th:1.1. t.he Fedcr:d lllldert:lkint:. bore
<br />fiome positi....(: rr:btion to COllt['()1 of Il;l,\'j::at.ion (Uni!crl, St'lles \.. Jl"i!!Oll' Ril'er Co.,
<br />supm, ;')] 0; Unlfcel St,jfes v. C,11i1mo,lure Purk, Sllpr:1, :~~)!; United Stlll/'s v. ..I Pllfl-
<br />'/lcllia", PeHI'C) Co., :Sllpr:~, .123; United Slales v. Chfll1r!!er-Dlll;uar Co., 511pr:I, c.~; .
<br />0.1111 elLS,'.') cited). :\lId. rd!.:rrinl.!; to International P{IJl~" Co. v. lJ.r!llcd .)lalct:
<br />(232 U. S. 39m, UTlited Slales v. Hil'er RV/I(]e Co. (2tif) U. 8. -1] /), :\\lrI <::1,:;('8 elted,
<br />they ob~crve th:1.t tbis Court. h~s nc\'er permitted the CO\.,"":'flI11lent to per",'crt ita
<br />1l:1vigntioll sl'/'vit.ude into n. right to c\pst.roy rip:l.riA.n interests without reimhl1rse-
<br />ment wb're no n:wig-:1t.ion purpf)~e c"\ist,p(l.
<br />Sinc,"":' we 00 not :\!,.';rce Lhat. C01\gr('~':l intended to in....oke its n;\\'i~ati('ln sc'r\"itude
<br />. itS to e3('h and e....ery olle o{ t!Jis group of coordin:\ted projects, we do !lot r'~:\eh
<br />Lhe eonstitut.:()nal or other issued thll'> posen. AccordiJlgly, we !lee..1 !lot decide
<br />whether a gf'lle!";\l del'l:lr:lt.ion of purpose is controllini:!; where int.crfen.:nce wit.h
<br />n:wigat.ion is lwither t.hc !ll{'ans (South Carolina v. Georgi'l, 93 U. S. 4) nor the
<br />consequr:nec (Unilea States ..... Commodore Pnrk, fuprn) of its ;\d\'alle{,nlCltT, l~is"~~
<br />wherc. Simil:1.rl~., we need not ponder wltcthrr, by virt.ne of :1. highly fiet.ional
<br />n:\\"iC;:l.t,ioJl purpose, Lhe Govel'l1mcnt could dC'st.roy t.hC' flow of;\ n:n.jl!:alllc "Irc;~m
<br />and C:\rry aw:1.y its waters for !:l:1.le t.o privut~ :nt.erl.'sts withollt COlllpCIlS:ltioll to
<br />those deprived of them. We hnve IH~Ver held th:1.t or ;mything like it, and we
<br />llC'cd not. here P:l::::5 on :lilY quest.ion of constitutional power: for \\'C clo nQt filld
<br />that Congn's:'i 11;15 at.t..-:!mpt.crl to t:lke or :lllthorized t.he t:lking, without. com~
<br />pClls:~t.iol\, of any rip:!lt;; v:Llid under 8btc law.
<br />On t.he contrary, Congress' general dirN'.t.ion of purpose we Vlillk w~s int(,lld~ci
<br />to lwlp llleet. ;lllY objec.tion to its constitlltiollal power to llndert~ke this big
<br />~un~lc of big Jlwjec.tfS. The cllstom of invoking: t.he n~\'ig,;1.tion power ill n.llf,!lOri7.-
<br />Jng llnpro\"f:ments appears to have had its origin when the po\\"pr (If t.he CPlltr:d
<br />Governrnl'nL to make internal imprl)\.emenls wa.s eont.C',"'tect llnd in doubt. It was ",I
<br />not 1I1ltill fj:jG that tl1i!:l COllrt, in U7I1tcrl Sln/e.~ v. Buller (2U7 U. S. n decl:1.red for
<br />the fic:5t t.imC", :'I.IlO wit.hout dissent 011 thii) point., t.h~lt., iil cOllft~rrillg power upon
<br />COllg["(':"s to Lax "t.o P:1Y tile Deht;; :\lld prOVide: for t-he common - Defcnse :llld
<br />gClleml Welfare of the Unit.ed Sbtr:s," the Cons.titution dl!lcg:~tt.S:1. power ~cp:lr:Ltc
<br />and di::;t,iIlCt frolll those l;ltcr enulller:1tec\, and OIlC not. rt'.;;tri('tcd by thcm, :1[1(1
<br />tll:Lt. COIl.~rt'ss lias a ~l\iJst,;llltivc powpr to t[l"\ and appropri:ltc for' t.he ~clli:rnl
<br />wt'ifare, limited only hy the requirelllent. th:lt it. shall be e\crri!;('d {or t.he common
<br />bell(~nt a~ djst,in~lii:-il1cd fnun some mert~ toc:~1 pllrpose. If ,my d'lllht. of this
<br />power l'l'Ill:Lill(~d, it. \\:15 bid to I'c.!<t the followirw \'l~ar in lIdl'rrinf1 \". DIll'i8 (301
<br />'U. S. GIn, (j.lO). Thlls tile power of Con:-;rc:'=s''\n promote the c:(:ner:tl \\.('If:l.re
<br />t.hroll~h hrc:('-~c;tl~. project:::: {or rcr!:lm:tlioll, irri!.!;:\tioll, or othC'r infcrll;-d improvu_
<br />~llr:nt, is now :-IS clear :~nd amplc [Is. its Po\\.,~r to accomplish the s.Ulle l'c.....u!ts
<br />Indlr~C"tl~. thrOll,l!;h. resort to st.r:1illP.d ill.V~rprdat.ion of the POW(:T ovcr n:wig;:ltion.
<br />nut lU view of tIllS b~lck~roUllCt we tlllllk th:~t r('fercnce to the n;lVi~;\tion !Jowcr
<br />was in j\l.<;tific:~tion of Fedl'r:1.1 n.dion on the whole, not for effect. Oil !)riVI\t.c rig'his
<br />flt e....ery ]oc:1.hon along; e:\cb component project.. EVcll if we assume, with t.he
<br />GO....f'rnment., tha~ Fri~ult Dam in fact bc~r.;; soml"! rcl:1t.ioll to control of n:wig:ltion
<br />WC' think ncvert.helf'!<s Lh.'l.t Congress realistically elected to tre:~t. it a.:3 :l recl:lm[l~
<br />tion project. It was so roncC'i\'ecl allCl aut.horiz0c\ bv th~ PCf:sidollt. :md it. WilS so
<br />r~pr~"H.:ntl'd to Congress. Whether Congrl'58 could huve (".ho3c,n to t:lhn cluirn:\nts'
<br />r:Hhts. by the .exercise of its dominant n~vig:at.ion Bcrvitudc is im:nateri:ll. By
<br />directing the Secreta.ry to proc('C'n. under thn Roclu.ml\tion Act of I 002, C,)n'Yn~as
<br />elected not ~jto ill nny 'way Interfi:re with the laws of :~ny St:H~ - '" - rl!I:~ting
<br />
|