OCR Text |
Show gation project, may be so taken. Indeed, land may be constitutionally acquired for establishment of a site for a town, relocation of which was oc- casioned by the creation of a reservoir. It should also be noted that enhancement resulting from a projected improvement must be excluded as an element of market value, as of the date of taking, if the lands involved were probably within the scope of such a project from the time the Federal Government was committed to it. Under the Property Clause, the rights of the United States have additional importance in con- nection with the generation and sale of electric power. When the Federal Government con- structs an authorized dam, the power of the fall- ing water is an inevitable incident. Such water power comes into exclusive Federal control, with the right to convert it into electric energy consti- tuting property of the United States. It is settled that, in disposing of such energy, the Federal Government may lease or sell and fix the terms, and it may acquire transmission lines. War Power.-In addition to its constitutional power to declare war, Congress also has authority to levy taxes and to appropriate funds to provide for the common defense of the United States. The scope of these powers in relation to water re- sources is largely unexplored by the judiciary. With respect to the construction of Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River under the 1916 National Defense Act, the Supreme Court has held that the dam and the power plant are adapted to the purposes of national defense. It found ample support for a finding by the lower court that, while there was no intention to use the nitrate plants or hydroelectric units for pro- duction of war materials in time of peace, the maintenance of those properties in operating con- dition and the assurance of an abundant supply of energy in event of war, constitute national defense assets. After noting the combined use of both commerce and war powers, the Court held that the dam and power plant were constructed in the exercise of Federal constitutional functions. Treaty-Making Power.-The Constitution provides that treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. Treaties have both existing and potential im- portance, particularly as to international streams such as the Rio Grande, the Colorado River, the Columbia River, and the St. Lawrence River. Important functions respecting international streams have been vested in international agencies created pursuant to treaties. By treaties with western tribes of Indians, the United States has reserved certain rights to use of waters. Its power to do so and to exempt them from appropriation under State laws the Supreme Court has held to be undeniable. General Welfare Power.-Congress has express constitutional power to levy taxes and appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The authority to provide for the general wel- fare of the United States is a delegation of power separate from and not restricted by other dele- gations of power enumerated in the same section of the Constitution, such as that over commerce. A recent decision of the Supreme Court suggests that Congress may lawfully promote the general welfare of the United States through large-scale projects for reclamation, irrigation, and other in- ternal improvement. The sole test stated by the Court is that the power must be exercised for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Equitable Apportionment.-The Supreme Court of the United States has original and ex- clusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more States. In the exercise of that juris- diction, it has passed upon a number of water controversies between States, most of them involv- ing disputes concerning the diversion and use of water from interstate streams. Disposition of such controversies has been based upon the principles of equitable apportion- ment. On the basis of equality of rights, this doctrine fits the decision to the facts of the con- troversy without adherence to any particular formula. Nor do the relative rights of containing States depend upon the rules of law applied in such States. The Court will not exert its extraordinary power to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, unless the threatened invasion of 280 |