OCR Text |
Show 50 condemned for a right-of-way for a canal or ditch required in carrying out an irrigation project are taken for a public use.202 Similarly, there is adequate constitutional authority for acquisition of land for establishment of a new site for a town, relocation of which was occasioned by the building of a dam and a reservoir.203 Enhancement of value 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 the project from the time the Government was committed to it."20* In a case where seepage and percolation caused by a federal irrigation project raised the ground-water table, the injury resulting was held to be incidental, incurring no liability.205 But the cost of draining lands flooded by such seepage and percolation must be borne by the lands within a project.206 Lands acquired by condemna- tion proceedings for irrigation projects are not taxable by a subdivision of the state.207 Nor are they liable for special assessments.208 Electric Power.-The rights of the United States as a proprietor have particular importance in connection with the generation and sale of electric power. In the 1936 Ashwander case, petitioners argued that even if the Government might properly dispose of surplus power necessarily produced be- yond its own needs at a dam constructed primarily for naviga- tion, it could not adopt a deliberate plan for generating and selling power surplus to its own needs.209 Without finding it necessary to pass on the validity of the TVA Act, the Supreme Court held that, upon the construction of Wilson Dam in aid of national defense and navigation:210 m United States v. O'Neill, 198 Fed. 677, 680 (D. C. Colo. 1912). 808 Brown v. United States, 263 U. S. 78, 81 (1923). 204 United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 377 (1943). **Horstmann Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 138, 145-146 (1921). 808 Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Bond, 268 U. S. 50 (1925). 807 United States v. Power County, Idaho, 21 F. Supp. 684, 686-687 (D. O. Idaho 1937). ** Mullen Benevolent Corp. v. United States, 290 U. S. 89, 91 (1933). *»Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 335 (1936). aM 297 U. S. at 330. This is but a logical culmination of the principles al- ready announced in Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal |