Evening star., 1940-12-16

Gives JUS. Broad
Power Control
New River Ruling Calls
Authority as Wide
As Commerce Needs
BY J. A. FOX.

A broad grant of authority over
the hydro-electric resources of the
country was given to the Federal
Government today when the Su-
preme Court, by 6-to-2 decision,
upheld the licensing provisions of
the Water Power Act of 1920, which
allowed the Government to control
the financial setups of private power
developments affecting navigable
waters and to recapture the projects
after so years.
Justices Roberts and McReynolds
dlssented from the rule on navi-
gability laid down by the ma aioritv
opinion read by Justice Reed. Chief
Justice Hughes did not participate.
The far-reaching decision held
that the authority of the Federal
Government over the Nations
streams lis as broad as the needs
of commerce.
The licensing law was CHALLENGED
by the Appalachian Electric Power
Co., which for IS years has fought
Federal regulation of an 11,00O,O 900
project on New River near Radford,
IN Southwest Virginia Joining with
Appalachian were Virginia, West
Virginia and North Carolina, which
are traversed by New River. and 80
other States. They declared the
authority claimed by the Govern
ment would strike down both the
rights OF the States to determine
whether their water-poWer resources
Should be publicly or privately de-
veioped, and also the rights of the
States to take for themselves the
benefits of whichever form of de-
velopment they elect to adopt"
The Appalachian had contended
that New River was not navigable
and that its flow would not affect
the navlgability of the KanaWha. to
which it is tributary. Granting
that it is navigable, the power COM
pany argued, the Government still
was without right to impose licens-
ing requirements beyond those that
will safeguard navigability.
Sweeping Language Used.
In sweeping language, the decision
read by Justice Reed brushed aside
these contentious. Declaring that
the New River is navigable, the ma
jority opinion added:
In our view it cannot properly
be said that the constitutional power
of the United States over its waters
is limited to control for navigation.
BY navigation respondent (Appa-
lachlan) means no more than opera
/ tlon OF boats and improvements Of
the waterway itself In truth, the
authority Of the United States is
the regulation of commerce on its
waters. Navigability in the sense
Just stated is but a part of this
whole. Flood protection, watershed
development, recovery of the cost
OF improvements through utilization
OF power are likewise parts of COM
merce control.
"As respondent soundly argues,
the United States cannot by calling
a project Of its own a multiple pur-
pose dam give to itself additional
powers. but equally truly the re-
spondent cannot by seeking to use
a navlgable waterway for power
generation alone, avoid the author
ity of the Government over the
stream. That authority is as broad
as the needs of commerce. Water
power development from dams in
navigable streams is from the public
standpoint by-product of the gen.
eral use of the rivers for commerce.
To this general power, the re-
spondent must submit its single pur-
pose of electrical production.
THE fact that the commission
Federal Power is willing to give
license for power dam only is of
no significance in appraising the
(See NEW RIVER, Page A-4)