Court Opinion

ID: 9450630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:53:27.268496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:23.849383
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The Special Act of Congress of July 3, 1886, 24 Stat. 123 (“Little Falls Act”) is somewhat broader in its terms than the Special Act of Congress of April 15,1886, 24 Stat. 12 (“Special Act”) referred to in Northwest Paper Company, Petitioner, v. Federal Power Commission, Respondent, No. 17,679, companion case to this one and decided this date. In the Little Falls Act, Congress authorized the Little Falls Water Power Company
“ * * * to improve and develop the water-power in the Mississippi River at Little Falls, in the State of Minnesota, by constructing, maintaining, and operating in said river, at said Little Falls, dams, piers, sluice ways, canals, locks, ponds, breakwaters, abutments, and mill sites for manufacturing purposes -x- * (Emphasis supplied.)
It further provided:
“ * * * the Secretary of War may at any time require such changes and alterations to be made in said works, at the expense of said water-power company, as he may deem advisable and necessary in the interests of navigation”; and “ * * * the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.”
Here the Special Act itself authorizes the “constructing, maintaining, and operating” of the project. Certainly that would include the right to repair, upkeep and, I believe also, the reconstruction of the facility authorized. I would hold that such authorization definitely comes within the exemption provided in the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, amended and reenacted in 1935, for the reasons referred to in my dissent in the Northwest Paper Company case.
I would reverse the Commission’s order here, also.