WSP07268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001175 238 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36 spirit and letter of the Federal Power Act is designed and calculated to protect and enforce, not to impair or destroy, property rights acquired under the municipal legislation of the state. 59 This matter disposed of, it remained only to postulate the complete, sovereign authority of the Federal government over its own property. The fact that the existence of such authority with respect to water rights had been expressly raised and expressly denied in Ka.nsas v, Colorado was apparently not deemed worthy of even passing remark60 It seemed only too clear to the court that, as navigability was the touchstone in the First Iowa case, so was, by a simple parity of reasoning, land ownership in the Pelton. It is extremely unfashionable in these times to mention such things as enumerated powers of the Federal government and powers reserved to the states or to the people under the tenth amendment, But one cannot help ponder over this sudden elevation of the control over Federal prop- erty from mere proprietorship to the basis for sweeping power to act in derogation of long-standing property rights built up over the years. The position of the Supreme Court is the more astounding when it is realized that only recently an almost identical question was raised with respect to the Federal Power Act with a resoundingly negative result announced by Mr. Justice Burton,61 Under section JO( d) of the act, a licensee is required to "establish and maintain amortization reserves" out of surplus earned in excess of a "reasonable return upon the licensee's net investmenL"62 The power company had attempted to de- duct annual payments made under contracts whereby the company was purchasing the water rights from former owners, and thus reduce the net returns and thus include, within the investment base, the cost of acquir- ing such water rights. The commission took the position that the govern- ment's plenary power over navigation negatived any assertion of value in these water rights which had become subject to Federal license under the act. Respectable authority (Chandler-Dunbar case63) appeared to sustain the commission's position. But the statute made "no express as- sertion of the paramount right of the Government to use the flow of the .. 59 Specific requirement of compliance with state regulatory laws is contained in section 9(b), hereafter discussed, 41 STAT. 1068 (1920), 16 U,S.c. sec. 802(b) (1952). The general saving clause is section 27: "Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein," 41 STAT. 1077 (1920),16 U.s,c. see. 821 (1952), 60 See p, 231 supra, 61 Federal Power Comm'n v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp" 347 U.S. 239 (1954). 6241 STAT, 1068 (1920), 16 U,S,c. see, 803(d) (1952). 63 United States v, Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co" 229 U,S. 53 (1912).