Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/420/395/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 00:08:22
Document Index: 508268497

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 797', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 14', '§ 29', '§ 18', '§ 23', '§ 817', '§ 23', '§ 817', '§ 23', '§ 23']

US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 420 > CHEMEHUEVI TRIBE OF INDIANS V. FPC, 420 U. S. 395 (1975)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 420 U. S. 395
(b) The surplus water clause of § 4(e) does not authorize FPC licensing of water used for cooling purposes in thermal electric power plants, nothing in the Act's language or legislative history disclosing any congressional intent that that clause should serve any broader interests than the project works clause. And, contrary chanrobles.com-red
In these three cases, we review a single judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to chanrobles.com-red
On September 20, 1971, two Indian tribes, five individual Indians, and two environmental groups [Footnote 1] (hereinafter the complainants) filed a complaint with the Commission requesting it to require 10 public utility companies located in the Southwestern United States [Footnote 2] to obtain licenses for six fossil-fueled thermal electric generating plants being constructed by the companies along the Colorado River and its tributaries. [Footnote 3] The plants are part of a projected vast electric power complex, and the energy generated within this new Southwestern chanrobles.com-red
The Commission, on November 4, 1971, issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The chanrobles.com-red
Following denial by the Commission of an application for a rehearing, 46 F.P.C. 1307, the complainants filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the Commission's order. The Court of Appeals undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the executive and legislative antecedents of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, and traced in detail the Act's legislative history and the administrative and judicial interpretations of the Act since its passage. 160 U.S.App.D.C. 83, 489 F.2d 1207. Based on this voluminous material, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's conclusion that thermal electric plants are not "project works" under § 4(e), and that the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under the clause extends only to hydroelectric generating plants. "Steam plants," the court held, "were purposely omitted from the congressional scheme." 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 107, 489 F.2d 1231. The Court of Appeals also held, however, that the Commission's licensing authority under the "surplus water" clause of § 4(e) is not similarly limited. The use of "surplus water" for cooling purposes by thermal electric generating plants is sufficient, the court concluded, to bring those plants within the Commission's licensing jurisdiction. 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 111-117, 489 F.2d 1235-1241. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the Commission to determine in the first instance whether any of the six plants involved in this case fall chanrobles.com-red
under that branch of its licensing authority. Id. at 118, 489 F.2d 1242. We granted the parties' petitions for writs of certiorari to consider the important questions of statutory construction presented by this litigation. 417 U.S. 944.
Consideration of the Commission's statutory licensing authority under Part I of the Federal Power Act must, of course, begin with the language of the Act itself. Section 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797(e), authorizes the Commission chanrobles.com-red
Emphasizing that these provisions do not require that the project works be used to generate "hydroelectric power," but rather merely "power," the complainants assert that the six thermal electric power plants in this case fall squarely within the statutory language defining the Commission's licensing jurisdiction. Each of the thermal electric facilities undoubtedly qualifies as a "complete unit of development of a power plant." The physical structure of each "project" therefore must be chanrobles.com-red
So long as adherence to the literal terms of a statute does not bring about a result completely at variance with the purpose of the statute, the complainants argue, there is no justification for resorting to extrinsic aids such as legislative history to determine congressional intent. And since modern methods of operating thermal electric power generating plants present an even greater threat to the conservation and orderly development of the power potential in navigable streams than do the operations of hydroelectric projects, [Footnote 7] they argue that recognition of the Commission's licensing jurisdiction over thermal chanrobles.com-red
The complainants' reliance on the literal language of § 4(e) and on the so-called "plain meaning" rule of statutory construction is not entirely unpersuasive. But their assertion that thermal electric power plants drawing cooling water from navigable streams are unambiguously included within the Commission's licensing jurisdiction is refuted when § 4(e) is read together with the rest of the Act, as, of course, it must be. See, e.g., Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass, 404 U. S. 157, 404 U. S. 185; @ 49 U. S. 122.
Other provisions of the Act make more apparent the limitations intended by Congress upon the reach of chanrobles.com-red
In none of these statutory provisions is there any reference to the development or conservation of steam power, despite the fact that, in 1920, as today, thermal electric generating plants produced the greatest portion of this chanrobles.com-red
In 1918, [Footnote 10] an administration bill prepared by the Secretaries of War, Interior, and Agriculture, containing most of the provisions eventually included in the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, was introduced in Congress. chanrobles.com-red
The administration bill was reintroduced in the 66th Congress. The House Committee on Water Power again recommended approval to meet "the need for legislation for the development of hydroelectric power. . . ." H.R.Rep. No. 61, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 4. [Footnote 12] The Senate chanrobles.com-red
Ever since that first report in 1921, the Commission has consistently maintained the position that its licensing authority extends only to hydroelectric projects. [Footnote 14] Such a longstanding, uniform construction by the agency charged with administration of the Federal Power Act, particularly when it involves a contemporaneous construction of the Act by the officials charged with the responsibility chanrobles.com-red
The conclusion that Congress did not intend to give the Commission licensing jurisdiction with respect to chanrobles.com-red
160 U.S.App.D.C. at 116-117, 489 F.2d 1240-1241. We cannot agree with this conclusion of the Court of Appeals with respect to the "surplus water" clause of § 4(e), because we can find no support for it in the text, in the legislative history, or in the administrative interpretation of Part I of the Federal Power Act.
The original title, preamble and text of Part I of the Federal Power Act provide strong evidence that Congress intended to restrict the Commission's licensing jurisdiction with respect to the power industry to the construction and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities. See supra at 420 U. S. 403-404. Nothing in the language of the Act suggests that the surplus water clause was designed to be an exception to the Act's limited scope and purpose. [Footnote 17] Similarly, from 1921 to the present, the Commission has consistently interpreted its licensing authority as being "limited to the consideration of projects designed to produce water power." FPC First Annual Report 51. See supra at 420 U. S. 408-409. No exception has ever been recognized chanrobles.com-red
The Court of Appeals' own extensive analysis of the general background and legislative history of the Federal Water Power Act conclusively demonstrates that Congress intended the Act as a whole, not merely the project works clause, to subject to regulation only that segment of the power industry involving the construction and operation of hydroelectric generating facilities. See 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 91-109, 489 F.2d 1211233; cf. supra at 420 U. S. 405-408. More importantly, the legislative history pertaining to the surplus water clause itself indicates that that clause, like the rest of the Act, relates to the conservation and development of only hydroelectric power.
The phrase "surplus water or water power from any Government dam" had its origins in legislation enacted during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conferring on the Secretary of War the authority to lease at individual dam sites excess water for power development. [Footnote 18] The term "surplus water" in those statutes always referred to its use for the development of water power. [Footnote 19] chanrobles.com-red
51 Cong.Rec. 11415. The report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [Footnote 20] and congressional debate on § 14 plainly indicate that only water power uses of surplus water were to be regulated. [Footnote 21] Steam power was mentioned only as a competing chanrobles.com-red
Similar bills were introduced in the 64th and 65th Congresses. Again, nothing in the language or reports on any of that proposed legislation indicated that the licensing authority to be created would extend to the chanrobles.com-red
The administration bill, as already noted, see supra at 420 U. S. 407, was reintroduced in the 66th Congress, and was enacted without any material changes in the surplus water clause as the Federal Water Power Act of 1920. As the Court of Appeals observed, see 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 112-113, 489 F.2d 1236-1237, little relevant legislative history concerning the meaning of the surplus water clause was generated during the 66th Congress. chanrobles.com-red
160 U.S.App.D.C. at 115-116, 489 F.2d 1239-1240 (footnote omitted). The court concluded from this transfer of responsibilities that the Federal Water Power Act reflected a concern with comprehensive water resource management and that the surplus water clause was intended to provide a basis for expanding governmental supervision of general water resource development and use. Id. at 116-117, 489 F.2d 1240-1241.
Although it is true that § 29 of the Federal Water Power Act, 41 Stat. 1077, did expressly repeal the statutory authority for the Waterways Commission, it seems evident that that repeal was not intended to transfer all of that Commission's functions to the new Federal Power Commission. The House debates clearly indicate that the Waterways Commission authority was repealed largely because that Commission was not, in fact, a functioning agency, and in order to prevent any possible conflict between chanrobles.com-red
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917, § 18, 40 Stat. 269. Accordingly, even if it could be concluded that the Waterways Commission's powers had been inherited by the FPC, that conclusion would not support recognition of Commission licensing jurisdiction over thermal electric power plants using "surplus water" for cooling purposes. [Footnote 26] chanrobles.com-red
Contrary to the suggestion of the complainants, a reading of the surplus water provision as referring only to hydroelectric plants utilizing surplus water or water power from Government dams does not render that clause nugatory. First, a license to construct and operate project works does not automatically authorize use of surplus water from a Government dam. Where a project will use surplus water, the Commission may properly require a second license, which may impose additional charges or operational conditions on the licensee. Cf. Alabama Power Co., 34 F.P.C. 1108; California Oregon Power Co., 13 F.P.C. 1, 12-13, supplemental opinion, 15 F.P.C. 14, 18-21, petition for review dismissed, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 239 F.2d 426. Second, facilities constructed under a congressional grant issued prior to enactment of the Federal Water Power Act are exempted by § 23(b) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817, from the requirement of chanrobles.com-red
The complainants finally argue that, even though it may have been proper 50 years ago to construe the Commission's licensing jurisdiction as limited to hydroelectric projects, such a construction does great violence to the policies central to the Federal Power Act in the light of modern conditions. Although, in 1920, steam plants supplied the bulk of the Nation's electric power and, as today, those plants were water-cooled, [Footnote 27] the complainants point to the tremendous growth in size and efficiency of the modern thermal electric power complex and the concomitant increase during the past half-century in the quantity of water used by steam plants and change in the nature of that usage. [Footnote 28] Because the cooling chanrobles.com-red
water used by the six plants involved in this case will be evaporated, rather than returned to the river system, [Footnote 29] those plants will withdraw permanently up to 250,000 acre feet of water annually from the Colorado River system -- more water than was used by all the steam plants in the United States in 1920. [Footnote 30] Unless such uses are regulated by subjecting them to the licensing jurisdiction of the Commission, the complainants argue, private power interests will succeed in appropriating the power potential in public waters, the very evil the Federal Water Power Act was designed to eliminate. Whatever the merits of the complainants' argument as a matter of policy, it is properly addressed to Congress, not to the courts. The legislative history of the Federal Water Power Act conclusively demonstrates that, in 1920, Congress intended to provide for the orderly development of the power potential of the Nation's waterways only through the licensing of hydroelectric projects. And in chanrobles.com-red
Thermal electric generating plants used 120 billion gallons of water per day for cooling purposes in 1971, compared to approximately 178 million gallons of cooling water needed on a daily basis in 1920. See id. at 105-106, n. 111, 489 F.2d 1229-1230, n. 111. Largely for environmental reasons, many modern steam plants evaporate a significant amount of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes instead of returning it to the water source. Cf. N. Fabricant & R. Hallman, Toward a Rational Power Policy: Energy, Politics, and Pollution 99-101 (1971). Permanent loss of large quantities of water can obviously have a significant adverse effect on the "power potential" of the Nation's waterways.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals contains an exceedingly thorough analysis of the attempts by the Congress and the Executive to control the development of the power potential of the Nation's waterways in the years prior to 1918. 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 91-96, 489 F.2d 1215-1220. See also J. Kerwin, Federal Water Power Legislation (1926); Pinchot, The Long Struggle for Effective Federal Water Power Legislation, 14 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 9 (1945). That analysis reveals that the only segment of the power industry intended to be affected by those early federal regulatory initiatives was the construction and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities. Referring to those early legislative proposals, the special House Committee on Water Power stated that
In fact, § 23(b) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817, makes it unlawful for an unlicensed party "for the purpose of developing electric power, to . . . utilize the surplus water or water power from any Government dam." Although the use of cooling water by thermal electric power plants is necessary to increase the efficiency of the generating process, see 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 108 n. 128, 489 F.2d 1232 n. 128, it is most natural to read § 23(b)'s reference to using water "for the purpose of developing electric power" to mean harnessing the power of falling water to produce electric energy. The "plain meaning" of § 23(b), therefore, would seem to limit the scope of the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under the surplus water clause to hydroelectric facilities.
160 U.S.App.D.C. at 118, 489 F.2d 1242. But those provisions also tend to indicate that, when Congress has wanted to confer the broad authority to dispose of "surplus water" for purposes other than hydroelectric power development, it has done so explicitly and unambiguously.
See id. at 107 n. 124, 489 F.2d 1231 n. 124; 1 FPC, National Power Survey 63 (1964); cf. Fabricant & Hallman, supra, n. 7 at 52.
The total generating capacity of all steam plants in the United States in 1920 was under 9,000 megawatts. Edison Electric Institute, Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility Industry Through 1970, p. 4 (2d ed.). By 1970, total installed capacity of conventional steam plants was more than 275,000 megawatts. Ibid. Thermal electric plants in 1971 used 120 billion gallons of cooling water per day, compared to 178 million gallons per day in 1920. See 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 105-106, n. 111, 489 F.2d 1229-1230, n. 111. A substantial amount of the water used for cooling purposes by many modern steam plants is evaporated, rather than returned to the water source. Cf. Fabricant & Hallman, supra, n 7, at 99-101.
Thermal electric power generating plants used 178 million gallons of cooling water per day in 1920, see n 28, supra, which is approximately 546 acre feet per day. (There are 325,851 gallons in an acre foot, the amount of water needed to cover an area of one acre to a depth of one foot.) The six plants involved in this case will use more than 650 acre feet of water per day. See 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 90, 489 F.2d 1214.