My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03738
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03738
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:37:16 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:56:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.200.60
Description
Basin Multi-State Organizations - Missouri River Basin Commission - Reports
Date
1/4/1974
Title
Technical Report of the Federal Legislation Group - Joint Federal-State Subcommittee Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Water Marketing
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />( <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />just stated, is but a part of this whole. Flood <br />protection, watershed developm"nt, recovery of the <br />cost of improvements through utilization of pOller are <br />likewise parts of commerce control." <br /> <br />The exclusionary effect of a Congressional assertion of the <br /> <br />COt:lll!erce Power lias noted in Unit.ed States v. 1\Tin City Pm-ler Co., <br /> <br />350 U.S. 222, 224-225 (1955) where the Court said: <br /> <br />"The interest of the United States in the flow of a <br />navigable stream originates in the Commerce Clause. That <br />Clause speaks in terms of pOller, not of property. But,t.he <br />power is a do:r.inant one vhich can be ar,serted to the ex- <br />clusion of any cOffipeting or conflicting one." <br />, <br /> <br />In the sSJoe tenor, the United States Supreme Court said in Tacoma <br /> <br />v. Taxpayers of T~coma, 357 U.S. 320, 334 (1958); <br /> <br />"It is no longer open to question that. the Federal <br />Government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution <br />(Art 1, S 8, cl 3) has dominion, to the exclusion of the <br />States, over naviGable lIaters of the United States. Gibbons <br />v. Ogden (US) 9 "'he6.t 1, 196, 6 L ed 23, 70j Nell Jersey v. Sargent, <br />269 us 323, 337, 70 L eel 289, 293, 46 S Ct 122j United States v. <br />Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 US 377, 424, 85 L ed 243, 261, <br />61 S Ct 29lj First Im-ra Hydro-Electric Co-op '" Federal Pm:er Com. <br />32d us 152, 173, 90 L eel 1143, 1154, 66 S Ct 906j United States v. <br />T\,in City Power Co. 350 us 222, 224, 225, 100 L ed 240, 245, 76 S <br />Ct 259." ' <br /> <br />And see Ashwander v. T.V.A.,' 297 U.S. 238, 338 (1936). <br />- , <br /> <br />The pre-eminent interest of the United States in the navigable <br /> <br />waters of the l.\issouri River \ras further discussed and admitted by <br /> <br />the governors of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Icontana in the <br /> <br />Congressional hearings on the Picl,-Sloan Missouri Basin Progrartl <br /> <br />held as preliminar:>, to the enactment of Section 9 of the Flood <br /> <br />Control Act of 19114 (58 Stat. 887) which authorized the Pick-Sloan <br /> <br />Missouri Basin Program. See Appendix 1 attached. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />f <br />I <br />._ I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.