OCR Text |
Show 29 navigation.109 It remains undecided whether a different rule must be applied where such interests are damaged in a valid exercise by the United States of commerce authority not relat- ing to navigation. It is nevertheless established, as we have already seen, that the exercise of commerce authority over waters under the jurisdiction of Congress is not limited to navi- gation, but is as broad as the needs of commerce.110 Finally, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has held that, with respect to a validly authorized federal project, a state cannot:111 call a,halt to the exercise of the eminent domain power of the federal government because the subsequent flood- ing of the land taken will obliterate its boundary. And the suggestion that this project interferes with the state's own program for water development and con- servation is likewise of no avail. That program must bow before the "superior power" of Congress. Proprietary Power Additional federal authority concerning water and land re- sources stems from the Property Clause of the Constitution, under which Congress has proprietary power:112 to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States * * *. This clause drew scant comment in the Constitutional Con- vention. Indeed, records of the Proceedings of the Convention disclose that no comparable provision was included in the draft of the Plan of a Federal Constitution tendered to the Conven- tion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina.118 Toward the end of the Convention, however, the Property Clause was made 109 See United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725, 737 (1950). uo See supra, pp. 22-23. See also infra, p. 47. m Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508, 534-535 (1941). 132 U. S. Const, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 118 5 Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, 128-132 (rev. ed. 1845). |