Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />