Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Federal-state relationships are brought into focus by the principal <br />contention of the Secretary: that Congress directed that the Roanoke Rapids <br />Project be constructed by the United States b~cause in the Flood Control <br />Act of 1944 it "approved" a general basin-wid.e plan for the Roanoke River <br />Basin, which named the Roanoke Rapids projecti as a part of the plan. ' <br />Thereby, says the Secretary, Congress removeq the project from the li- <br />censing power of the Commission. The 1944 Aqt contains fifteen pages <br />authorizing construction of projects for Floqd Control. Two projects on <br />the Roanoke were authorized, but not the Roar).oke Rapids Project. The court <br />found there was no Congressional intent to a~thorize for exclusive federal <br />development each project named in the plan. :Thislack of Congressional <br />intent is demonstrated by the following: <br />_ The Act contains specific authori$ation for only two <br />projects out of eleven in this ba$in. <br />_ After passage of the Act, one project in the plan was <br />authorized by a further act of Congress and another <br />project in the plan was denied au~horization. <br />_ The records of the Congressional committee indicated <br />a contrary intent. ' <br />_ If Congress intended to withdraw all projects from the <br />licensing power of the Commissioq it oould have made <br />this clear as it did in the Boulder Ca~on Project Act. <br /> <br /> <br />The river basin concept is now being considered by those interested <br />in water resources. It is advocated by theiPresident's Water Resources <br />Policy Commission. It is reasonable to exp~ct that the Supreme Court may <br />take this case for decision. Every state might well be concerned. It may <br />find that a basin plan approved by the Congtess excludes all but the Federal <br />Government from constructing projects within the Basin. This is the con- <br />tention of the Secretary of Interior and hejmay be more successful in the <br />Supreme Court. <br /> <br />Rank vs Krug <br /> <br />Hollister Land and <br />Cattle Compa~'vs Krug <br /> <br />United States <br />Dis~rictCourt <br />Southern District <br />of California <br /> <br />680-N.D. <br />685-N.D. <br /> <br />These actions arise in Central Va~ley, California. A principal <br />purpose of the Central Valley Project iste! furnish supplemental water to <br />lands of the San Joaquin Vallet bya canal [system supplied from the San <br />Joaquin River as it flows out of theSierr4 on the east side of the valley. <br />Friant Darn creates a reservoir from which ~he waters of" the San Joaquin <br />River are diverted through the Madera and ~riant-Kern Canals to the east side <br />of the valley. The flow of the San Joaqui~ River now caught at Friant Dam <br />formerly supplied water for irrigation of *rop lands, underground water for <br />pumping, flood waters for'the overflow of pasture lands, and water for the <br />propagation of fish life. Sacramento Rivet 'water is substituted in the <br />project for certain of these San Joaquin w~ters by pumping it to a reser- <br />voir known as Mendota Pool. However, no s)1bstituted Sacramento River water <br />will be supplied to the lands between thisiMendota Pool and Friant Dam. <br /> <br />Riparian land owners in the stretch ,of the river between Friant <br />Dam and Mendota Pool brought the Rank case to enjoin the Secretary of <br />Interior from conserving a~ of the flow behind Friant Dam. In the first <br /> <br />-12- <br /> <br />