OCR Text |
Show 21 And in Arizona v. California, sustaining federal construction of the dam, reservoir and power plant in connection with the Boulder Canyon Project, the Court in 1931 said:67 the fact that purposes other than navigation will also be served could not invalidate the exercise of the au- thority conferred, even if those other purposes would not alone have justified an exercise of Congressional power. Similarly, in its 1936 Ashwander opinion, the Court held that the Wilson Dam on the Tennessee River was validly authorized in the exercise of the commerce and war powers, and that:68 The power of falling water was an inevitable incident of the construction of the dam. That water power came into the exclusive control of the Federal Government. The mechanical energy was convertible into electric energy, and the water power, the right to convert it into electric energy, and electric energy thus produced, con- stitute property belonging to the United States. In 1940, the Court characterized "recovery of the cost of im- provements through utilization of power" as a part of com- merce control.69 Likewise, where a multiple-purpose dam is constructed and operated by the Federal Government pri- marily for flood control, the Denison Dam case in 1941 ex- pressly held that exercise of commerce authority for that pur- pose is not invalidated where generation of power, as a "pay- ing partner," is one of the ends served.70 Licensing Nonfederal Development of Power.-Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has also provided in the Fed- eral Power Act for issuance of licenses to nonfederal agencies for development of water power on streams under its jurisdic- 87 283 U. S. 423, 456 (1931). "Ashwan&er v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 330 (1936). * United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 426 (1940), reh. den., 312 TJ. S. 712 (1941). '"Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508, 530-534 (1941). |