Opinion ID: 105321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of the federal power act.

Text: On its face, the Federal Power Act applies to this license as specifically as it did to the license in the First Iowa case. There the jurisdiction of the Commission turned almost entirely upon the navigability of the waters of the United States to which the license applied. Here the jurisdiction turns upon the ownership or control by the United States of the reserved lands on which the licensed project is to be located. [8] The authority to issue licenses in relation to navigable waters of the United States springs from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The authority to do so in relation to public lands and reservations of the United States springs from the Property ClauseThe Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . . Art. IV, § 3. [9] In the instant case the project is to occupy lands which come within the term reservations, as distinguished from public lands. In the Federal Power Act, each has its established meaning. Public lands are lands subject to private appropriation and disposal under public land laws. Reservations are not so subject. [10] The title to the lands upon which the eastern terminus of the dam is to rest has been in the United States since the cession by Great Britain of the area now comprising the State of Oregon. Even if formerly they may have been open to private appropriation as public lands, they were withdrawn from such availability before any vested interests conflicting with the Pelton Project were acquired. [11] Title to the bed of the Deschutes River is also in the United States. [12] Since the Indian Treaty of 1855, the lands within the Indian reservation, upon which the western end of the dam will rest, have been reserved for the use of the Indians. More recently they were reserved for power purposes [13] and the Indians have given their consent to the project before us. Accordingly, there is no issue here as to whether or not the title to the tribal lands is in the United States. [14] There thus remains no question as to the constitutional and statutory authority of the Federal Power Commission to grant a valid license for a power project on reserved lands of the United States, provided that, as required by the Act, the use of the water does not conflict with vested rights of others. [15] To allow Oregon to veto such use, by requiring the State's additional permission, would result in the very duplication of regulatory control precluded by the First Iowa decision. 328 U. S. 152, 177-179. No such duplication of authority is called for by the Act. [16] The Court of Appeals in the instant case agrees. 211 F. 2d, at 351. And see Washington Department of Game v. Federal Power Commission, 207 F. 2d 391, 395-396. Authorization of this project, therefore, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission, unless that jurisdiction is modified by other federal legislation. See United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 703; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land Co., 188 U. S. 545, 554.