Court Opinion

ID: 9611162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:52:47.501956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:10.481255
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting).
The vice in the opinion of the majority stems from the concept embraced in this sentence from its opinion: “The State of Oklahoma oums the waters of the Grand River, a nonnavigable stream * * The State of Oklahoma did not “own” the waters of the stream; it merely had the right to regulate and control the use of them for the benefit of its citizens. “Ownership” by the state is a concept repugnant to the American theory of government; it is “contrary to the genius of a free government.” Under the American system of government, natural resources belong, not to the state, but to the people. The state is not the overlord, doling out privileges to his underlings ; it is the servant of the people, chosen by them to administer their common resources for the benefit of all, according to their respective rights. Its sole right is that of regulation and control.
*158But this right of one of the states of the Union is subject to the superior right •of the United States to regulate and control the waters of the river, in the interest of navigation and purposes related thereto. Because the United States had this superior right, it is not liable for the actions complained of.
That, in the opinion of the Chief Judge .and me, is the essence of the case. If we are correct in our premise, there has •been no taking of private property for public use for which the Fifth Amendment requires the payment of just compensation. Plaintiff, the state’s agent, of •course has no greater right than its creator, the State of Oklahoma.
The issue presented is a clash in the •exercise of the powers of two sovereign-ties — on the one hand, the power of the Federal Government, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to use .and control the waters of a nonnavigable ■tributary of a navigable stream, in the Interest of navigation on the navigable .•stream; and, on the other hand, the power of a state to use and control those waters for irrigation, the production of power or otherwise, in the interest of its •citizens. If the powers of the Federal 'Government extend to the right of regulation and control of the waters of a nonnavigable tributary of a navigable .stream to the extent necessary to control .and improve navigation on the navigable stream, its power to do so supersedes "the power of the state to use and control the waters of this stream.
That the powers of the Federal Gov-ernment do extend to the control and use of the waters of a nonnavigable stream for the improvement of navigation on a navigable stream to which it is tributary is settled by State of Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508, 523, 61 S.Ct. 1050, 85 L.Ed. 1487. Wherever this power comes in conflict with state power, the state power must yield. It was so held in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., supra. It had been so held long before in United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 19 S.Ct. 770, 43 L.Ed. 1136. In that case the state sought to use the waters of the Rio Grande, far above the point where it was navigable, for irrigation, and had given the respondent the right to do so. The Supreme Court said the United States might enjoin such a use because it would interfere with the navigability of the river down stream. The Court said that the power of New Mexico to use those waters was “limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the United States.” 174 U.S. at page 703, 19 S.Ct. at page 775.
In Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 17, 47 S.Ct. 265, 266, 71 L.Ed. 511, it was said: “Whenever the constitutional powers of the federal government and those of the state come into conflict, the latter must yield,”- citing a number of cases.
In State of Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., supra, the Federal Government had let a contract to respondent to erect a dam on the Red River some 500 miles above the point where it was navigable. Oklahoma sought to enjoin the erection of the dam, insisting that it was beyond the constitutional power of Congress to build it, and that the building of it would interfere with the state’s own program for water development. In answer to the latter contention, the Supreme Court in an unanimous decision said, 313 U.S. at pages 534-535, 61 S.Ct. at page 1064:
“And the suggestion that this project interferes with the state’s own program for water development and conservation is likewise of no avail. That program must bow before the ‘superior power’ of Congress. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., supra, 174 U.S. at page 703, 19 S.Ct. 775, 43 L.Ed. 1136; New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U.S. 328, 337, 46 S.Ct. 122, 124, 70 L.Ed. 289; Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558, 569, 56 S.Ct. 848, 854, 80 L.Ed. 1331; United States v. Appalachian Power Co., supra [311 U.S. 377, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243].”
*159This is in harmony with the purpose declared by Congress in the Federal Power Act, 49 Stat. 846, 16 U.S.C.A. § 791a et seq., to assume priority in the control of such waters. In section 23(b) of this Act, it is prohibited that any dam should be constructed by any “person, association, corporation, State, or municipality” on such a nonnavigable stream until it receives a license from the Federal Power Commission. The validity of this Act, as so construed, was sustained by the Supreme Court in United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243.
When the Federal Government ousts the state government and takes control over the waters of the river, it has taken no property right of the Grand River Dam Authority, an agency of the State of Oklahoma; it has merely exercised its right to erect a dam at this place, which was superior to the right of the State of Oklahoma to do so, and, hence, superior to the right of its agency to do so. In doing so, it did not take private property for public use for which it is required by the Constitution to pay just compensation.
When it decided to erect the dam the Federal Government did take certain lands, rights-of-way, and other easements that had been acquired by the Authority, but these have been paid for. The only thing that has not been paid for is the exclusion of Oklahoma and its agent from control and use of the waters of this river. The Federal Government having a superior right to use and control them, it does not have to pay the holder of a subordinate right for its exercise.
This necessarily follows from the holding in United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., supra. As stated previously, that company undertook to appropriate all the unappropriated waters of the Rio Grande River in the State of New Mexico, in which state the Rio Grande River was nonnavigable, but the Supreme Court held that the United States was entitled to an injunction to prevent this. If the United States may enjoin the appropriation of waters by a corporation authorized by a state to do so, the United States certainly does not have to pay the corporation for the deprivation of that right.
That case, if authority were needed, would seem to dispose of plaintiff’s claim for compensation for the taking of its right to erect a dam at this place and, by so doing, to utilize the water power of the river.
The majority comes to a different conclusion because they start with a false-premise, that this was a taking of private property for public use.
JONES, Chief Judge, joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.