WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 0088 a coherent theory of water rights comparable to the reserved right theory, there is a common thread: when th~ federal government, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, for example under the Commerce or Property Clauses, authorizes a project requiring the diversion or use of water, state laws that would effectively prevent the project from being built or operated under the conditions and terms and for the purposes prescribed by Congress must fall under the Supremacy Clause. The Court has consistently held that a state cannot block construction or operation by the United States or its licensee of dams and reservoirs for flood control, improvement of navigation, power production, or reclamation. 50/ For example, in Oklahoma v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U:S. 508 (194l), the Court held that Oklahoma could not block construction by the United States of a dam and reservoir for purposes of flood control and improvement of navigability on the Red River in Oklahoma and Texas. One of the objections raised by Oklahoma to the federal project was that construction of the dam and impoundment of the waters would be inconsistent with the state's water resources program. The Court rejected that argument, finding that: [T]he suggestion that this project interferes with the state's own program for water development and con- servation is likewise of no avail. That program must bow before the .superior power" of Congress. " 313 U.S. at 534-35 (citations omitted). Similarly, in cases involving federal licenses to construct hydroelectric projects awarded under the Federal Power Act, the Court has consistently rejected state attempts to block authorization of the construction of project facilities 50/ The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress' consti- tutional authority to construct or license such projects can stem from any of several constitutional grants of power, such as the Commerce Clause, which provides the basis, inter alia, for regulation and promotion of the navigability of streams; the property Clause, which authorizes Congress to manage federal lands, or the General Welfare Clause. See, e.g., Oklahoma v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. SOB, 534 (T941) (flood control and navigation project authorized under Commerce Clause); First Iowa Coop. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152, 176 (1946) (hydroelectric project on navigable stream authorized under Commerce Clause); Federal Power Comm'n v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435, 445 (1955) (hydroelectrIc project on non-navigable stream authorized under Property Clause, because project to be constructed on federal lands); United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 125, 131-38 (1950) (reclamation project authorized under General Welfare Clause). - 32 -