FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168  
169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   >>   >|  
nal Law the States possess dominion over the beds of all navigable streams within their borders,[358] but on account of the servitude which Congress's power to regulate commerce imposes upon such streams, they are practically unable, without the assent of Congress, to utilize their prerogative for power development purposes. Sensing, no doubt, that controlling power to this end must be attributed to some government in the United States and that "in such matters there can be no divided empire,"[359] the Court held, in 1913, in United States _v._ Chandler-Dunbar Co.,[360] that in constructing works for the improvement of the navigability of a stream, Congress was entitled, as a part of a general plan, to authorize the lease or sale of such excess water power as might result from the conservation of the flow of the stream. "If the primary purpose is legitimate," it said, "we can see no sound objection to leasing any excess of power over the needs of the government. The practice is not unusual in respect to similar public works constructed by State governments."[361] Congress's Jurisdiction Over Navigable Streams Today Since the Chandler-Dunbar case the Court has come, in effect, to hold that it will sustain any act of Congress which purports to be for the improvement of navigation whatever other purposes it may also embody; nor does the stream involved have to be one which is "navigable in its natural state." Such, at least, seems to be the algebraic sum of its holdings in Arizona _v._ California,[362] decided in 1931, and in the United States _v._ Appalachian Electric Power Co.,[363] decided in 1940. In the former the Court, speaking through Justice Brandeis, said that it was not free to inquire into the motives "which induced members of Congress to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act," adding: "As the river is navigable and the means which the Act provides are not unrelated to the control of navigation, * * *, the erection and maintenance of such dam and reservoir are clearly within the powers conferred upon Congress. Whether the particular structures proposed are reasonably necessary, is not for this Court to determine. * * * And the fact that purposes other than navigation will also be served could not invalidate the exercise of the authority conferred, even if those other purposes would not alone have justified an exercise of congressional power."[364] And in the Appalachian Electric Power case, the Court, abando
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168  
169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Congress
 

purposes

 

States

 

stream

 

United

 
navigable
 
navigation
 

Electric

 
Dunbar
 

improvement


Appalachian

 

government

 
conferred
 

decided

 
exercise
 

excess

 
streams
 
Chandler
 

speaking

 

Justice


Brandeis

 

involved

 

natural

 

embody

 

Arizona

 

California

 

holdings

 

inquire

 

algebraic

 

served


invalidate

 
determine
 

structures

 

proposed

 

authority

 
congressional
 

abando

 
justified
 

Whether

 
Canyon

Project
 

adding

 
purports
 
Boulder
 

motives

 

induced

 
members
 

reservoir

 
powers
 

maintenance