OCR Text |
Show 15 But actual use is not the only determinant. For regardless of the extent or manner of actual use, those waterways capa- ble or susceptible of use by the public for purposes of inter- state transportation and commerce are also navigable waters of the United States.42 Nor is a waterway, otherwise suitable for navigation, "barred from that classification merely because artificial aids must make the highway suitable for use before commercial navigation may be undertaken." ** Thus, in de- termining navigability, "it is proper to consider the feasibility of interstate use after reasonable improvements which might be made." ** Moreover, doubt has never existed "that the navi- gability referred to in the cases was navigability despite the obstructions of falls, rapids, sand bars, carries, or shifting currents." *" Other Waters.-It should not be inferred from what has been said, however, that the applicability of the commerce power to waters is restricted to such as are navigable waters of the United States. For it is settled that federal commerce author- 42 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563 (U. S. 1870) ; The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 441-443 (U. S. 1874) ; Parker v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 667 (1891) ; United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64,82-83 (1931). 48 United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 407 (1940), reh. den., 312 U. S. 712 (1941). For the significance of the adjec- tives "ordinary" and "natural" as applying to a waterway's condition, see id.; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563 (U. S. 1870); The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 441-443 (U. S. 1874); United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 15 (1935). In Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 329 (1936), the Court said, "While, in its present condition, the Tennessee River is not adequately improved for commercial navigation, and traffic is small, we are not at liberty to conclude * * * that the river is not susceptible of development as an important waterway * * *." See also The Montana Power Go. v. Federal Power Commission, Case No. 10200, C. A. D. C, decided October 4,1950. 44 United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 409 (1940), reh. den., 312 U. S. 712 (1941). See also The Montana Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, Case No. 10200, C. A. D. C, decided October 4,1950. 48 311 U. S. at 409, citing The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 442-443 (U. S. 1874) ; Economy Light Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 122 (1921) ; United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 86 (1931). See also Mr. Justice McLean in Spooner v. McOonneU, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 944, No. 13, 245 (C. C. D. Ohio 1838) ; and The Montana Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, Case No. 10200, C. A. D. C, decided October 4,1950. 011611-51------3 |