OCR Text |
Show 44 affirmed federal proprietary authority to legislate for the bene- fit of arid federal lands.176 Many public lands are arid, and the Property Clause became the constitutional foundation for the 1902 Reclamation Act- a statute with many supplements and amendments compris- ing Reclamation Law under which numerous reclamation and irrigation projects have been constructed in the 17 Western States.177 When the legislation was proposed, its opponents complained that it would convert the Government into a "real estate improvement society."17S But the Supreme Court had long before brushed aside a similar objection to the leasing of public mineral lands on the ground that it would encroach on state rights by the creation of a numerous "tenantry" within their borders, its 1840 decision in United States v. Gratiot holding that the Property Clause permitted such dis- position of federal property and that the choice of method was for the discretion of Congress.179 The few cases passing on the constitutionality of the Recla- mation Act have sustained its validity. In United States v. Hanson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deemed it a valid means under the Property Clause for improving public lands to make them marketable.180 Rejecting a contention that the work to be done and the expenditures to be made were not public and governmental in character, and not within the limited powers of the Pederal Government, the Circuit Court referred to the Property Clause under which power is " Vested in Congress without limita- tion/ " and said:181 In pursuance of that power, Congress passed the reclamation act to make marketable and habitable large 176 206 U. S. 85-89, 92. Cf. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 330-331, 336 (1936). 177 Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, as amended and supplemented, 43 U. S. C. 371 et seq. m See minority views, H. Rep. No. 794, Part 2, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 10 (1902). m 14 Pet. 526, 538 (U. S. 1840). ""lG? Fed. 881, 883 (O. A. 9, 1909). Cf. Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Foote, 192 Fed. 583, 594 (C. C. D. Idaho 1911). m 167 Fed. at 883-884. |