OCR Text |
Show 31 For example, in authorizing the City and County of San Francisco to construct the Hetch-Hetchy Project on public lands, Congress provided for municipal distribution of the elec- tric energy with a proviso against the transfer of that function to a private utility.118 The Supreme Court sustained an in- junction against violation of that proviso when the City and County arranged for distribution by a private utility company, saying:119 Thus, Congress may constitutionally limit the disposi- tion of the public domain to a manner consistent with its views of public policy. And the policy to govern dis- posal of rights to develop hydroelectric power in such public lands may, if Congress chooses, be one designed to avoid monopoly and to bring about a wide-spread dis- tribution of benefits. The authority of Congress to require a conditional license for development of electric energy on public lands was recog- nized by the Supreme Court in 1917 in Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States.120 Recently, however, conditions imposed in a Federal Power Act license for use of public lands have been questioned by the Idaho Power Company.121 There has been almost uniform acceptance of the power of Congress to legislate in connection with property held by the United States in the several states. And the Supreme Court has observed that "in the instances where it has been ques- tioned in this court its validity has been upheld and its suprem- acy over state enactments sustained."122 The Court had earlier held that admission of a state into the Union did not deprive Coggeshall v. United States, 95 F. 2d 986, 989 (O. A. 4, 1938) upholding federal power to condemn lands necessary solely for protection of a national forest. 118 Act of December 19,1913, § 6, 38 Stat. 241, 245. 119 United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 30, reh. den., 310 U. S. 657 (1940). ^243^8.389 (1917). 121 This case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia Circuit. Idaho Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, Case No. 10530, October Term, 1950. m Utah Power d Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 404-405 (1917). 911611-51------1 |