OCR Text |
Show 51 The Government acquired full title to the dam site with all riparian rights. 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 Fed- eral Government. The mechanical energy was convert- ible into electric energy, and the water power, the right to convert it into electric energy, and the electric energy thus produced, constitute property belonging to the United States. * * * Authority to dispose of property constitutionally acquired by the United States is expressly granted to the Congress by § 3 of Article IV of the Constitution. After observing that the Property Clause is silent as to the method of disposition, the Court specified that the method employed must: m be an appropriate means of disposition according to the nature of the property, it must be one adopted in the public interest as distinguished from private or personal ends, and we may assume that it must be consistent with the foundation principles of our dual system of government and must not be contrived to govern the concerns reserved to the States. Thereupon, the Court held valid the disposition method there involved, including acquisition of transmission lines, and that as to the surplus power, "The Government could lease or sell and fix the terms,"218 Later, in the Tennessee Electric Power Company case, cer- tain utility companies operating in the vicinity of existing and proposed TVA dams sought to enjoin TVA from carrying out its power program except as related to sale of electric energy generated at Wilson Dam.213 Finding the TVA project to be Co., 142 U. S. 254 (1891); Oreen Bay & Miss. Canal Co. v. Pattern Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58 (1898), reh. den., 173 U. S. 179 (1899) ; United States v. Chandler- Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53 (1913). See supra, pp. 19-21. m297U. S. at 338. SU297U. S. at 338-339. *M Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 21F. Supp. 947 (D. C. Tenn. 1938). |