OCR Text |
Show 132 protection" was expressly identified as a part of commerce control.25 And in the 1941 Denison Dam case, the Court pointed out that there is no constitutional reason why Con- gress cannot, under the commerce power, "treat the water- sheds as a key to flood control on navigable streams and their tributaries."26 Here, the Court again specifically said that commerce authority extends to the tributaries of navigable streams, as it had previously pointed out in 1899 and 1931.87 In the main, provisions of existing flood-control law are found in the statutes enacted in 1917, 1928, and 1936, dis- cussed above, supplemented and modified from time to time. In the 1917 legislation, Congress declared that all provisions of "existing" law relating to examinations and surveys and to works of improvement of rivers and harbors "shall apply, so far as applicable" to examinations and surveys and to works of improvement relating to flood control.28 Expenditures of funds for flood-control projects are also required under the 1917 law to be made in accordance with the law governing expendi- tures of funds for navigation improvements.29 Hence, to avoid needless repetition here, the following dis- cussion will be restricted to laws enacted since the 1917 statute. A complete picture of flood-control legislation, therefore, will require the reader to supplement the following summaries by a reexamination of that part of the preceding chapter dealing with "Improvements of Navigable Waters," so far as it con- cerns provisions dealing with expenditures of funds (pp. 105- 107) and so far as it otherwise concerns "applicable" pre-1917 laws (pp. 87-112). We shall see that flood-control legislation since 1917 bears a general similarity to legislation for navigation improvements. Consequently, flood-control and navigation projects are much alike today with respect to provisions of law affecting prepa- ration, authorization, funds, and operation. 25 United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 426 (1940), reh. den., 312 TJ. S. 712 (1941). 26 Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 U. S. 508, 525 (1941) ; see supra, pp. 18-19. * United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703, 706, 708 (1899) ; United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 90 (1931) ; see supra, pp. 16-17. 28 Act of March 1, 1917, §3, 39 Stat. 948, 950, 33 U. S. C. 701. Nowhere does this statute explain which provisions of "existing" law are "applicable." 39 Id. |