Title: Progress in Coordination Within Particular Regions
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003120/00001
 Material Information
Title: Progress in Coordination Within Particular Regions
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: President's Water Resources Policy Commission
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collections - Progress in Coordination Within Particular Regions
General Note: Box 12, Folder 9 ( Water Resources Law - Vol #3 - 1950 ), Item 38
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003120
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

subject to certain state regulation.2. State law governs the
formation and incorporation of the water-users' organizatis
which distribute water under the Reclamation Law, and of
public bodies and cooperatives eligible for Rural Electrifica-
tion Administration loans." In addition, almost all federal
power is distributed by entities organized and largely regulated
under state law.

Progress in Coordination Within Particular Regions

At the outset, we said that there is no single, uniform federal
policy governing comprehensive development of water and land
resources. We also pointed out, however, that some statutes
separately deal with individual projects, specific areas, and
single river basins Under a combination of these latter laws
and other legislation of general application, development with-
in different basins has approached varying degrees of compre-
Most of these laws are concerned principally or exclusively
with the physical aspects of integration. Efforts to provide
for coordination have been concerned primarily with iitegrat-
ing groups of engineering projects without a parallel regard
for harmonizing the economic and social objectives of such
projects. This aspect has been noted by the Hoover Com-
mission and by its Task Force on Natural Resources: "

"For example:
Applicant for Federal Power Commission license must comply with state
laws relating to bed and banks, to use of water, and right to engage In
business. Act of June 10, 120, 9, 41 Stat. 1063 1068, 16 U., S. C. 802.
Public-service licensees under Federal Power Act muat abide by certain
state regulation of services and charges. Act of June 10, 1920, I 19, 41
Stat. 1068, 1073,16 U.S. 0. 812.
SAct of August 4, 199, 2(g), 58 Stat. 1187, 1188, 48 U. S. 0. 485a(g);
Act of May 20, 1986, i 4, 49 Stat. 1368, 1865, as amended, 7 U. 5. 904
(Supp. III).
nosN or THE Exac~imvu BRANCH or THE GOVIERNMNT, p. 26 (March 1949) ;
THE. GovRNMENT, App. L, p. 31 (January 1949).

The "function" of river development is a multiple-
purpose one, cutting across many of the unifunctinal
agencies. Experience has shown that parcelling out
river development responsibilities among these func-
tional agencies produces endless confusion and conflict.
A plan for the development of a river basin cannot be
devised by adding together the special studies and the
separate recommendations of unifunctional agencies
concerned respectively with navigation, flood control,
irrigation, land drainage, pollution abatement, power
development, domestic and industrial water supply,
fishing, and recreation. These varied and sometimes
conflicting purposes must be put together and integrated
in a single plan of development.
In the following discussion of particular basins, we shall not
attempt a detailed description of the existing programs of
development. Our purpose will be to show the legal frame-
work under which these programs are progressing and their
relationship to comprehensive development.
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVnE BAsIN.-Federal participation in
development began here in 1870 when Congress directed the
Army Engineers to make an examination and survey of the
Coosa River for navigation improvement.=" Navigation works
were authorized in 1876, 1890, and 1892." With the advent
of railroads and improved highways, river traffic on the affected
reach disappeared and the works were abandoned.21
An extensive report on optimum use of the water resources
of the basin was prepared by the Army Engineers in 1934..
It presented a long-range plan for the ultimate development
of the waterways of the system in the coordinated interests
of navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power, and other
beneficial uses of water.

Act of July 11, 1870, 1 2, 16 Stat. 223, 226.
Act of August 14, 1876, 1, 19 Stat. 182, 134; Act of September 19, 1890,
1 1, 26 Stat. 428, 441; Act of July 13, 1892, 1 1, 27 Stat. 88, 101.
H. Doc. No. 66,74th Cong., 1st sees., pp. 69-70 (1985).
SH. Doc. No. 66, 74th Cong., 1st sess., a "308 Report" (1938).

In the next few years, various localized flood-control works
were constructed.2 As a result of the continued and rapid
expansion of economic activities in the valley, three reviews
of the previous report were assigned to the Army Engineers
by congressional directives between 1936 and 1939.2 A single
combined report was prepared in response to all three authoriza-
tions.26 An interim report was submitted in 1941 outlining
a plan for ultimate development of the basin's water resources,
to be accomplished step-by-step over a period of years in
accordance with plans being prepared by the Army Engineers.2
This plan was authorized in 1945.20"
In response to an authorization in the 1936 Flood Control
Act, the Department of Agriculture submitted a report to
Congress recommending a program of terracing, reforestation,
improved land use, better cropping practices, minor channel
improvements, and other measures to improve the soil and
reduce erosion and silting in the Coosa River Basin above
Rome, Georgia." In 1944, prosecution of this recommended
project was authorized.26"

a See e. g, Act of June 22, 1936, 5, 49 Stat. 1570, 1575; Act of August 18,
1941, 3, 55 Stat. 638, 641.
See H. Doc. No. 414, 77th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3 (1941).
H. Doc. No. 414, 77th Cong., 1st sess. (1941). The report stated that
the district engineer had developed "a comprehensive plan for navigation,
power generation, and flood control" and that at the request of the Federal
Power Commission a restudy was being made of this plan to "increase the
development of hydroelectric power." But the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors recommended that a comprehensive plan for the ultimate
development of the water resources of the Alabama-Coosa River system
for "navigation, hydroelectric power, flood control, and other purposes"
should be authorized at this time. Id. pp. 4-5.
"Act of March 2, 1945, 2, 59 Stat. 10, 17. "Alabama-Coosa River,
Alabama: Initial and ultimate development of the Alabama-Coosa River
and tributaries for navigation, flood control, power development, and other
purposes, as outlined in House Document Numbered 414, Seventy-seventh
Congress, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the plans
being prepared by the Chief of Engineers with such modifications thereof
from time to time as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief of Engineers may be advisable for the purpose of increasing the develop-
ment of hydroelectric power *."
m Act of June 22, 1936, 6, 49 Stat. 1570, 1593; H. Doc. No. 236, 78th Cong.,
1st sees. (1943).
Act of December 22, 1944, 13, 58 Stat. 887, 905.

At the same time, various agencies of the Department of the
Interior are responsible for their own separate programs within
the Basin. For example, the Southeastern Power Administra-
tion is charged with responsibility of marketing surplus power
from Army reservoir projects on the River.27 Likewise, the
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Mines are concerned
with their respective responsibilities.2. The Geological Sur-
vey also has its program.2" And the National Park Service
participates in planning for recreational facilities at Army
reservoir areas.27" In addition, the 1936 Park, Parkway, and
Recreational Area Study Act established a basis for coopera-
tive recreational planning between the Park Service and the
individual states.2'
Although interdepartmental consultation is not required by
statute for this region, arrangement exists for interdepart-
mental exchange of information through the Federal Inter-
Agency River Basin Committee."
significant recent incident concerning comprehensive develop-
ment is a 1950 legislative provision for a survey and prepara-
tion of plans by the Army Engineers. Bills were introduced
early in 1949 in both the House and Senate to establish a tem-
porary United States Study Commission to provide for "an
integrated and cooperative investigation, study, and survey"
in promotion of the conservation, utilization, and development
of the land and water resources of the Arkansas-White and Red
River Basins for multiple purposes."
Such a provision was adopted by the Senate as an amend-
ment to the 1950 Flood Control Bill, after having been re-

Department of the Interior Order No. 2558, March 21, 1950, 15 F. R. 1901
See spra, pp. 321-330.
m See supra, pp. 343-844.
SUnpublished letter from Chief of Engineers to Director of the National
Park Service dated February 23, 1945.
m" Act of June 23, 1936, 49 Stat. 1894, 16 U. S. C. 17k-17n.
See supra, pp. 431-433.
H. R. 4381 and S. 1576, both 81st Cong., 1st seas. (1949).

ejected by the House Committee.' This amendment would
have created a Commission made up of one representative
each from the Departments of Agriculture, the Army, and the
Interior, one from the Federal Power Commission, and a resi-
dent of the Basins not an official or employee of the United
States. In addition, the governor of each affected state was to
appoint a representative as a member of an advisory commit-
tee to participate in the meetings of the Commission.27 The
Commission's report was to be submitted to the President and
transmitted to Congress.
The Conference Committee rejected this Senate amendment,
substituting in its place a provision authorizing the Army En-
gineers to conduct a survey. It stated that "such a study can
be accomplished and the results coordinated with the appro-
priate Federal and State agencies under existing procedures of
the Corps of Engineers as governed by law and administra-
tive procedure." The conference provision became law, un-
der which the Army Engineers will make an examination for
flood control and allied purposes with a view to developing for
this region: 8
comprehensive, integrated plans of improvement for
navigation, flood control, domestic and municipal wa-
ter supplies, reclamation and 'irrigation, development
and utilization of hydroelectric power, conservation of
soil, forest and fish and wildlife resources, and other
beneficial development and utilization of water resources
including suchkconsideration of recreation uses, salinity
and sediment control, and pollution abatement as may
be provided for under Federal policies and procedures,
all to be coordinated with the Department of the In-
terior, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal

H. R. 5472, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949) : H. Rep. No. 969, 81st Cong., 1st
seas., p. 98 (1949); Sen. Rep. No. 1143, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 74 (1949);
H. Rep. No. 1968, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 27 (1950).
= The original bills provided that these state representatives be members
of the Commission. See aupr, n. 276, p. 458.
H. Rep. No. 1968, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 27 (1950).
SAct of May 17, 1950, 205,84 Stat. 168, -

Power Commission,;' other appropriate Federal agen-
c ies and with the States, as required by: existing
law *
The provision also contains language designed to prevent al-
teration, hindrance or delay of projects theretofore authorized,
or thereafter authorized, if in compliance with section one of
the lood Control Act of 1944.
In signing the bill, the President expressed dissatisfaction
with it.2 He pointed out that since important phases of the
development work would be carried out by the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and other federal
agencies, these agencies should participate in the making of the
plans in the first place, as should the states which also have im-
portant responsibilities in resource-development work. Refer-
ring to the provision for coordination of the Department of the
Army's plans with other federal agencies and the states, "as
required by existing law," the President said:8
All that is required by existing law, however, is that cer-
tain Federal agencies and the States concerned be given
an opportunity to comment on theplans prepared by the
Department of the Army, before they are submitted to
the President and the Congress. This is plainly no sub-
stitute for participation in the original preparation of
the plans.
f *
In the absence of such legislation, [as proposed in the
Senate version o the bill I shall attempt'to assure con-
certed action and effective planning, so far as that may
be accomplished under existing laws. I am therefore
issuing instructions to the appropriate Federal agencies
to work together in preparing comprehensive plans for
these basins, insofar as their existing authority permits,
and to invite participation by the States concerned.
This should remedy, to some extent, the inadequacy of

SH. Doc. No. 597, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 2 (1950).

the present act. But more than this is needed. I recom-
mend that the Congress reconsider the matter, and au-
thorize the type of investigation and planning that would
be accomplished under the provisions originally adopted
by the Senate. (Bracketed material supplied.)
Later, in separate letters to the Departments of Agricul-
ture, the Army, Commerce, and the Interior, to Federal Power
Commission, and to Federal Security Agency, the President
directed these agencies to organize an interagency committee,
to formulate procedure, and to map out a joint plan of inves-
tigation, indicating specifically the responsibilities of each and
the prospective allocation of agency resources to the joint
effort. He stated:
It is essential that the Executive agencies organize
their efforts to realize, as far as possible under existing
law, the potentialities of the broad-scale, integrated
national resources study for the Arkansas-White and
Red River Basins authorized in H. R. 5472.
In this connection it is important that the efforts of
the various agencies be integrated from the very be-
ginning of the investigation.
The final product of such a joint inter-
agency investigation should be a single comprehensive
report embracing the coordinated views of all agencies
This interagency field committee was established by the Fed-
eral Inter-Agency River Basin Committee on June 12, 1950,
with the Department of the Army designated as the Chair-
man Agency.2
CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.-Federal participation in
water-resource development in the Central Valley is largely
the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army
Engineers, both having prepared basin-wide plans for develop-

" Letters of the President, dated May 19, 1950.
Minutes, FIARBO, June 12,1950, Exhibit A.

meant2 In addition, the State of California has a plan for
It will be remembered that the act creating the California
D6bris Commission directed the preparation of plans for nav-
igation and flood control on the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers. In commenting on the resulting report, the Board
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors stated: 8
While Congress has hitherto included flood relief
among the objects to be accomplished by the work of the
debris commission, it appears to have considered this
only as incidental to the control of mining debris in
the interests of navigation. Should Congress now de-
cide to cooperate with the State of California in a com-
prehensive project of this magnitude for the purpose of
flood control, it is believed that the plan proposed, with
such division of cost as Congress may determine, should
be adopted, since, in the opinion of the board it is well
designed to secure the desired result. The board re-
ports, however, that the execution of this project is not
necessary in the interests of navigation.
Transmitting this report in 1911, the Acting Chief of Engi-
neers said: *
This report presents a project for control of floods, the
third duty assigned the commission. Recognizing that
Sthe interests of navigation, debris control, and flood con-
trol are inseparably connected, the commission has con-
sidered these problems as one general subject, thus

Sen. Doe. No. 118, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949) ; H. Doe. No. 867, 81st
Cong., 1st sess. (1949). For a discussion of the controversy over these
BEANcH OF THE GOVxENMENT, App. L, pp. 149-182 (1949). For an ex-
tensive treatment of the legal issues involved in the development of the
Central Valley, see 38 CALIF. L. REv. No. 4 (October 1950).
See Sen. Doe. No. 113, pp. 289-431.
See supra, pp. 119-120, 353, 389.
m H. Doe. No. 81, 62d Cong., 1st sess., p. 3 (1911).
0 Id. p. 2.

utilizez f:;ithe pnmmon good to the fullest extent prac
ticable the works for any one of the three.projects
Congress did not approve this plan until it enacted the 1917
flod control statute .
In the 1936 and 1938 Flood Control Acts, Congress directed
the Army Engineers to make pieliminary examinations and
surveys of a large number of rivers including the Sacramento,
certain of its tributaries, and theS an Joaquin. Pursuant
to this authority, a number of interim reports were prepared
for specific projects, some of which were authorized in the 1941
and 1944 Flood Control Acts.29
Meanwhile, the Bureau of Reclarmation was also prosecut-
ing a basin-wide development program. The California Legis-
lature in 1929 had authorized a state survey to evolve "a co-
ordinated plan fqr the conservation, development and utiliza-
tion ff the water resources f California." s Such a plan was
submitted to the State Legislature in 1931, but was not ap-
proved until 1941. In, 1933, the initial units of this plan,
linown as the Central Valley project, we approved by the
State Legislature and by a special referenduin.; This same
Legislature memorialized the Federal Government to include
the Central Valley project as a part of the emergency'uinem-
ployment relief program.2 Inittial portions of the Central
Valley project were authorized by, Congress in 1935 as a river
and harbor improvement.' Thatisame year, portions of the

Act of March 1,1917, 5 2,89 Stat. 948,949.
"n Act of June'22, 1936, 6, 49 Statl 1570, 1592, 1595; Act of June 28, 1938,
6,52 Stat. 1215, 1223, 1225.
''Act of August 18, 1941, 3, 55 Stt. 638, 69, 47; Act of December 22,
1944, 1 10, 58 Stat. 887, 891, 901.
CAImrozmIa STATOUEB Or 1929; ch. 832.
State of Califdrnih Department of Public Works, Bulletin No. 25,
"Report to Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan" (1930); OALIre~am
STATUTES OF 1941, ch. 1185, DEEINGS CALIF. CODES, WATEB, i 10000-10002.
11100-11855; Special Election, December 19, 1933.
SCALIrFOIA STATUTES OF 1933, Sen. J. Res. 29, ch. 109, p. 3166.
Act of August 30, 1935, 1, 49 Stat. 1028, 1038.

project were authorized under Reclamation Law." The entire
project was reauthorized by Congress, for construction by the
Secretary of the Interior asa& multiple-purpose project, in 1937
a4Magain an 1940.9 The latter reauthorization declares the
to be for the purposes of improving navigation, regu-
Slting the flew of the San Joaquin River and the Sacra-
mento River, controlling floods, providing for storage
and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof, for
construction under the provisions of the Federal.recla-
mation laws of such distribution systems as the Secre-
tary of the Interior deems necessary in connection with
lands for which said stored waters are to be delivered,
for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands and lands
of Indian reservations, and other beneficial uses, and
for the generation and sale of electric energy as a means
of financially aiding and assisting such undertakings,
and in order to permit the full utilization of theworks
constructed to accomplish the aforesaid purposes.
In 1949, the CentralrValley project was again reauthorized,
this time to include the American River development?" The
Army Engineers are to construct the Folsom Dam and Reser-
voir. Upon its completion to the extent where water,~from
the reservoir is ready to be turned either into the power, plant
or the conduits, the project is to be turned over to the Bureau
of Reclamation for "operation and maintenance under the
supervision of the Secretary of the Interior together with other
features of the American River development herein authorized
for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation, all in accord-
ance with the Federal reclamation laws." s
also Act of June 22, 1936,49 Stat. 1597, 1622.
SAct of August 26, 1937,1 2, 50 Stat. 844, 850 Act of October 17, 1940,
54 Stat 1198, 1199-1200.
Act of October 14,1949, 1 1, 63 Stat. 852. For a further reauthorization
see Act of September 26, 1950, 64 Sta. 1036.
m 2, 63 Stat 852. The Army's flood-control jurisdiction is preserved in
accordance with 1 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944, 58 Stat. 887, 800.


The Secretary of the Interior is directed: 8
to cause the operation of said works to be coordinated
and integrated with the operation of existing and future
features of the Central Valley project in such manner as
will effectuate the fullest and most economic utilization
of the land and water resources of the Central Valley
project of California for the widest possible public
COLORADO RIVER BASIN.-Early relevant events concerning
the Colorado Basin trace progress toward adoption of the
Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928.
In 1904, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to
investigate and report on the use of the waters of the lower
Colorado River for the irrigation of arid lands in Arizona and
California." By the 1920 Kinkaid Act, he was directed to make
an examination and report on the possibilities for irrigation of
the Imperial Valley in California by diversion of water from
the lower Colorado." The resulting report was submitted in
1922, and bills were vainly introduced to carry out its recom-
mendations.8 Two years later, the Bureau of Reclamation
submitted to the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Recla-
mation a voluminous report on development of the Colorado
During the 1925 debate in the Senate on legislation laying
the basis for the "308 Reports," several Senators voiced con-
cern lest authorization of an additional survey further delay
approval of the Bureau's program for development of the
Colorado Basin." Consequently, a proviso was added to the

S4, 63 Stat -.
Sen.J. Res. 71, April 28,1904, 88 tat. 591.
"Act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat. 600.
Sen. Doe. No. 142, 67th Cong., 2d sess. (1922); see, HBmrTOR AND FaIB
FOn~NA, pp. 31-32 (1939).
m See Sen. Rep. No. 592, Part 1, 70th Cong., Ist sess., pp. 13-14 (1928); and
H. Rep. No. 918, 70th Cong., 1st sess., p. 10 (1928). The Bureau of Reclama-
tion was then known as the Reclamation Service.
866 Come. Rso. 4804-480.

1925 River and Harbor Act which had the effect of precluding
"308"surveys for the Colorado River.0
Meanwhile, in 1922 the seven States in the Colorado River
Basin had signed an interstate compact which became effective
in 1929 as to all such States except Arizona by which it was
finally ratified in 1944.' The compact divides the Colorado
River Basin into an "Upper Basin" and a "Lower Basin" and
apportions the waters between these two Basins.'81 Its major
purposes are: 1
to provide for the equitable division and apportionment
of the use of the waters of the Colorado River system; to
establish the relative importance of different beneficial
uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove
causes of present and future controversies and to secure
the expeditious agricultural and industrial development
of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters,
and the protection of life and property from floods.
In addition to approving the Colorado River Compact, the
1928 Boulder Canyon Project~Act authorized the development
recommended six years earlier by the Bureau of Reclamation."
The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior "to make investi-
gation and public reports of the feasibility of projects for irri-
gation, generation of electric power, and other purposes in the
States of Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming for the purpose of *formulating a com-
prehensive scheme of control and the improvement and utiliza-
tion of the water of the Colorado River and its tributaries." "
It also gave consent to tihe States involved to enter into com-
pacts consistent with the Colorado River Compact and con-
WAct of March 3, 1925, 8, 43 Stat. 1186, 1190.
See supra, n. 27, pp. 320-321.
Colorado River Compact, Arts. I, III, Hoova DAM PowER AND WATER
CONTRACTs AN RELATED DATA, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reela-
mation, pp. 5, 6 (1950).
m Art. I, id., p. 5.
m For approval of the Compact, see supra, n. 27, pp. 320-821.
Act of December 21, 1928, $ 15, 45 Stat. 1057, 1065, as amended, 43
U. S. 0. 617n. For an interim report, see H. Doe. No. 419, 80th Cong., 1st
seas. (1947).

sistent with the Act "for a comprehensive plan for the develop-
ment of the Colorado River alid providing for the storage, di-
versibn,and use ofithe waters of said river." "'
Subsequently, other multiple-purpose projects wereauthor-
iaed oh the lower Colorado River. -Parker Dam was authorized
hi. 1935, and lDavi am in 1941.m
In 1940; Congress passed the Biulderi Canyon Project Adjust-
ment Act which provided for revision of the rate structure for
the Boulder Canyon Project."1 This Act also created a Colo-
rado Rivr ve D lop pet Fund into which is to be paid $500,000
per year for their 0y-year amortization period of, the project.8'
The initial installments into this Fund were to be used for the
formulation of a comprehensive plan for the utilization of water
of the Colorado Riversystem. Subsequent installments are
to be used for the investigation and construction of projects
i, the Colorado RiverBain .. :
In 194% Congress approved the Upper,Colorad Basin Com-
pact. Its statement of purposes is much the same as that
in the Coloradob Riie Comiipai. However, it apporti6ns
among the signatory States the waters apportioned tboe
Upier Basin by the Colorado River Compact." In addition,
the compact creates tite Upper Colorado River Commission,
composed of four Conimissioners representing respectively the
States of Colo6ado ,New IMexici, Utah, and Wyoming,- and
one representing the United Sities.m In its First Aniiual
Report, the Commission stated thatfit: m2
l0oks tbward'itVe day when itiiay, by agreement with
i' thi Federal Government designed to assure protection
of the broad 8 Litional interests to be served thereby,
S 19, 45 Stat. 1065.
Act of August 30, 1935, 49 Stat. 1028, 1038 H No. 186, 77th
Cong., 1st seas. (1941).
"4Art.of July 19, 40, 54, Stat, 774. as amended, 43 U. S. .68-18o.
*" 8i2d), 54,Stat. '74, as amended, 43U. S.j. 61a(d) (Supp. III).
Act of April 6, 1949, 63 Stat. 31.
'Art. I(a), 63 Stat. 31.
"Art. III, 63 Stat. 32. These States are Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah,,and .Wyoming.,.
m Art. VIII, 63 Stat. 35.

take over the administration, care, operation and main-
tenance of works that are authorized and constructed.
Recently, the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared plans for
a large-scale irrigation development known as the Central
Arizona Project." This proposed development was approved
by the Senate in 1950 as a project for irrigation, flood control,
navigation, water storage, power generation, and other bene-
ficial purposes, but no vote was taken by the House."'
COLUMBIA RiVER BASIN.-The first two large multiple-pur-
pose projects on the Columbia River-Bonneville and Grand
Coulee Dams-were undertaken in 1935." The impending
completion of Bonneville Dam two years later led to enactment
of legislation to provide for its maintenance and operation
and for the disposition of its power.' This legislation followed
substantially the recommendations of the President's Power
Policy Committee."7 As recommended by that Committee,
the form of administration established is to be provisional
"pending establishment of a permanent administration for
Botineville and other projects in the Columbia River Basin.t
HDoe. No. b 6, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949).
7~, 81st Oe6g., st sess. (1949); 96 Comi. REC. 2080 (1950).
IJn cotmiienting ri this proposal, theDepartment of Agriculture pointed to
"the need for a truly comprehensive plan in the Colorado Basin, prepared
jointly by 'i ageneles able to make worth-while contributions thereto."
H. Doe. No. 136,81st Cong., lst sess., p. 104 (194w). It said the project
"must be supported by projects and activities not contemplated in the
report; In particular, by upper basin reservoirs and a program of land
treatment," and that the reservoirs contemplated would soon be tendered
useless by sediment if nothing were done'to reduce erosion. Ibid. The
Arniy Engineers pointed out that itey were studying a group of ~elated
units ineided in the project though not involving ,ise of Colorado River
water or power. Id. p. 10.
See -*., p. 413.
SAct of August 20,1987, 50 Stat. 731, 16 U. S. C. 832 et seq.
'Se. Dee. No. 21, 7th Cong., 1st sess. (1987).
"Id. p. 2; Act of August 20, 1987, 1 2(a), 50 Stat. 731, 782, 16 U. S. C.
882a. T:he President's Power Policy Committee said that although Bonne-
vile and Grand Coulee "should be considered together, the Committee has
been compelled, because of the immediate need for legislative action in con-
nection with Bonneville to report on the latter first. However, in recom-
mending an administrative program for Bonneville the Committee has not
lost sight of the fact that there must ultimately be a tle-in of other Federal
projects in the Columbia River Basin and that recommendations made at

In addition, the Act provided that the Bonneville Power Ad-
ministrator shall act in consultation with an advisory board of
representatives from the other principal federal agencies con-
cerned with water-resource development."
Repeated efforts to obtain passage of a permanent over-all
administration for the Columbia Basin have been unsuccess-
ful."80 Meanwhile, both the Army Engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation have prepared reports on long-range programs
for development of the Columbia Basin.8s The President in-
structed both agencies to review their programs to obtain co-
ordination with each other and "with other affected agencies
of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agricul-
ture, and the Federal Power Commission, to the end that the
best over-all plans would be available" for presentation to
Such a coordinated plan was submitted to the President on
April 11, 1949. In the letter of transmittal, the two Secretaries
said: 8*
this time should be of a nature not incompatible with any national power
policy which may ultimately be established.
"For that reason the Committee suggests that a special provisional form
of administration be set up for the Bonneville project pending the establish-
ment of a permanent administration for Bonneville, Grand Coulee, and
other projects In the Columbia River Basin." Sen. Doc. No. 21, p. 2.
A similar interim policy was adopted in the ease of the Fort Peck Project,
with the Bureau of Reclamation designated as power-marketing agent.
Act of May 18, 1938, 5 2(a), 52 Stat.403, 404, 16 U. S. C. 833a.
"Departments of Agriculture, the Army, and the Interior, and the Fed-
eral Power Commission. 2a, 50 Stat. 73Z,16 U. S. C. 832a.
SSee S. 4890, 76th Cong. (1940) ; H. 977, H. R. 1434, H. R. 5129, H. .
5583, H 6076, H. R. 6889, S. 1852, S. 2430, all 77th Cong. (1941-1942);
H. R. 508, S. 460, S. 1716, all 79th Cong. (1945-1946); s. 1647, 80th Cong.
(1947) ; H. R. 427, H. R. 3636, H. R. 4286, H. IE 4287, S. 1631, S. 1632,S.. 1645,
all 81st Cong. (1949). Extensive hearings were held by the Public Works
Committees of both the House and Senate of the 81st Congress, 1st sess., on
H. R. 4286 and S. 1645 which were endorsed by the President, but no other
action has been taken.
"H. Doc. No. 473, 8ist Cong., 2d sess. (1950) (Interior) ; H, Doc. No. 531,
81st Cong., 2d sess. (1950) (Army). An earlier Army Engineer "308 Report"
had been submitted in 1933. H. Doe. No. 108, 73d Cong., 1st sess., vols. I, II
Letters from the President to Secretary of the Army and Secretary of
the Interior, dated September 16, 1948.
m Doc. No. 473, 8st Cong., 2d sess., p. 2 Italic (1950).

the two plans havebeen fully coordinated, not only with
regard to the physical features to be included in the plan
of development but also with regard to the policies and
scheduling of the work to be done.
The coordinated plan is comprehensive in scope and
is designed not only to meet the most pressing current
needs but to provide as well a basis for incorporation of
further projects into the program as they become neces-
sary. It provides also for the inclusion, when prepared
by the appropriate agencies, of plans for forest manage-
ment, land treatment, protection and propagation of
fish and wildlife, recreational development, meeting
needs and rights of Indians, and interagency procedures
for coordinated operation of river-control projects.
A supplemental Bureau of Reclamation report was submitted
to the President on July 20, 1949, together with the views of the
affected states and the federal agencies.O"
The Senate Public Works Committee recommended authori-
zation of parts of the Army portion of the coordinated plan as
an amendment to the 1950 Flood Control Bill."" That Com-
mittee declined to include the Bureau of Reclamation portion
of the plan because reclamation was not within its jurisdic-
tion." However, the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
was given time to prepare an amendment covering the reclama-
:tion features."'
This latter Committee reported out an amendment which
would have authorized the initial reclamation units of the co-
ordinated plan, and would have provided for a "Basin ac-
count" under which records for all power and irrigation proj-

SH. Doc. No. 473, 81st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 12-13, 55-93 Italic (1950). The
Secretary of the Interior made it clear that he does not consider these re-
ports as a substitute for a Columbia Valley Administration. Id. p. 13 Italic.
The President also shares this view. H. Doc. No. 597, 81st Cong., 2d sess.,
p. 4 (1950).
SH. R. 5472, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949); H. Doc. No. 581, 81st Cong.,
2d sess. (1950); Sen. Rep. No. 1148, 81st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 67-69 (1949);
H. Rep. No. 1968,81st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 22-24 (1950).
See 95 CoNs. REO. 14121 (1949).


ects would be kept on a region-wide basis."" Also, all power
costs and all reimbursements to be received from power reve-
nues would be kept on a consolidated basis.d The Commit-
tee asserted that there are two alternatives to such an
account: 8"4
One is to have a heterogeneous collection of power rates,
one rateiforeich project, even though the power would
be marketed through one transmission system result-
ing in confusion and competition among Federal proj-
ects. The second choice is to establish a uniform rate
at the level consistent with the highest-cost power proj-
ect, an undesirable and unequitable procedure.
But the Senate tabled the Interior and insular Affairs Com-
mittee amendment, as well as subsequent amendments which
would have provided for a "Basin account" for reclamation
projects only." 'The debate in the Senate suggests that, in its
effect upon comprehensive development of water resources, the
distribution of jurisdiction among legislative committees is
at times like the distribution of jurisdiction among agencies of
the executive branch."2
The President signed the Bill but urged the early authoriza-
tion of the missing pieces of the coordinated plan.**
DELAWAR RVFR BASIN.--A considerably different pattern
of development exists in the Delaware River Basin. Here
certain basin activities are being promoted by an interstate
commission known as Incodel.
In 1923, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, each
"Sen. Rep. No. 1851, 81st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 7, 26-28 (1950). 'A sun-
mary of the legislative history fa the bill and of the coordinated plan ap-
pears at pp. 2-8.
Id. p.7.
98 CONG. R C. 5252, 5256, unbound ed., April 14, 1950. Controversy also
arose over the "interest component" feature of the account by which in-
terest on power investment may be applied to repayment of irrigation allo-
cation. See also supra, p. 296.
90 CONG. RWc. 5086-5088 and 5127-5131, unbound ed., April 11 and 12,
SAct of May 17, 1950, 64 Stat. 163; H. Doc. No. 597, 81st Cong., 2d seas.,
p. 4 (1950).

authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate'an
interstate compact relative to the caiervation, uses and de-
velopment of the water resources of the Delaware River.'"
They negotiated a compact which was ratified by New York in
1925, but by neither New Jersey nor Pennsylvania.Ma A
revised compact suffered a similar fate iin 127.'
In 1929, a controversy developed between New Jersey and
NeWo~ o over watei diversion front the'iipperDelaware River
basin. After 6'years f litigation' the UTniid states
Supreme Court settled this dispute, on the basis of "equitable
ppo~l ion maa Th ereafter, the four Delaware River
Basin States in 1936 formed an interstate com mission, pbpu-
larly called Incodel, for the purpose of "entering up'i a program
to study the conservation, water supply, pollution, and other
pontial uses and benefits of, and to develop iatgrated plans
to conserve and safeguard," the water and other resources of
the Delaware River Basin in specified particulars."8

"NSa JwsTr LAws or 1923, ch. 94; LAw or Nzw YOB, 1923, cb. 58;
LAws o0 P n STXvAMRA, 1923, No. 29..,
Laws ow NIW )yoB, i 194 ch. 177; see also. LAwe. or NEw Yocx, 1925,
p.4,p.24 ; .... .
LAws or NEW Yoar, 1927, ch.688; see also LAWs or Nzw Yoa, 1927, na.1,
p. 1712. These compacts each reelted that the compact was ta ,be in WU
force and effect "upon adoption by the le~slarve aet of each and al of sai
states, the Congress of the United States having.,consented theret Arts
XXIV of 1M5.Compact and, Art. XXV of -1927 Cmoinpat Thalaws ratifying
each were repealed by New York in 189. LAws r Nzw YOWx, 1989, cb. 108.
M"See. rHS. posoK or anm STAvs, The Counaeilof StateGovernments~
p, 214 (1941-1942) ; New Jerae.v. New York, 288 U. s. 836, 3S. 19). :.
"For the Ats establishing the several Commissions anud Interstate Cooperation, see 14wS E IJAwAns, 1938 ch. 20(2i spiw.M
Laws, 1398 ch. .; 1iLws or PmHiermvaANA, 1987,: No. 85. ia- New.tWXrk,
this is accomplished by annual Concurrent Resolutions.; See THOMaseB5~w
1986-1946, App. (1946). Baeb such act establishes a Commission on Inter
state Cooperation which in, turn may establish committee and advi~ry
bodies to formulate proposals for intergovernmental cooperation. Each
Commission consists of representatives of the legislative and executive
branches of the States. The members serve without compensation, may
employ a staff and incur expenses, and make contributions to the Connell of
State Governments. The Interstate Commissioa oa, the Delaware River
Basin, Incodel, is a "Joint advisory board" .maintained by these Comm0is.

Incodel has dealt mostly with the acute problems of pollu-
tion abatement and water supply, but has also expressed con-
cern over problems of flood control, navigation, salinity, soil
conservation, forestation, water conservation, and recreation."
It has drafted uniform acts covering pollution and water supply
which formed the basis for legislation by each of the States
The water-pollution legislation of Delaware, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania is in the form of an interstate agreement.8
This legislation recites the desirability of interstate action on
Delaware River problems and declares that Incodel was formed
for that purpose. It then sets out a "reciprocal agreement"
which has received "formal ratification" by the health depart-

sions as "an instrument of governmental machinery" for the purpose quoted
in the text. See statutes cited below.
The specified particulars referred to in the text are thus stated in the
Delaware legislation; "A., To serve as a fact-coordinating body and to
develop the means and procedure by which the general plans and policies
proposed for the development of the region may be carried out; B. To sponsor
the carrying out of properly developed plans which result from 4urvreys and
research concerning population, land and water resources and uses, and
other related subjects; C. To coordinate the activities of the Commission and
Committees on Interstate Cooperation and their joint agency, the Council
of State Governments, with the work 'of the appropriate state and federal
agencies for the prevention and abatement of'pollution, for flood control and
for the proper general ile and control of th 'waters of the Delaware River;
D. To encourage interstate (sic) compacts and the enactment of uniform
state laws for the abatement of water pollution;, forflood control and for the
proper general use and dotrol, of the watei rf the Delaware River; 19. To
advance, perpetuate and outline the work, recommended by its conferences,
and to develop and propose new objectives *1' Slightly different
language is contained in the New Jersey and Peiinsylvania Acts, but no such
language appears in the New York lgislattion I&ws o'0DiEt:AWlAi, 194t,
ch. 98, 2; Naw JEBnsE L&ws or 1989, i b 146, Preamble; LAWS oV PENNYss.-
VANA, 1945, No. 123, 1 2.
Ineodel consists of ive members from eajih State's Commission on Inter-
state Coopeiation, and has a sadll staff and several technical advisory
DECADE OF PLANNED PBOOBmss, 1986-1946, App. (1946); THE BOOK OF THE
STATES, The Council of State Governments, p. 213 (1941-1942).
or PLANNED PnOGBESS, 1986-1946, pp. 5-21 (1946).
I LAws or DELAWAE, 1941, ch. 93; NEW JiEsEY LAws, 1939, ch. 146;
Lkms O PwnaTLVMqA,, 1945, No. 128.

ments of the four Delaware River Basin States. The agreement
declares that the four States "agree and are bound," that each
"pledges to each of the other signatory States faithful eooper-
ation in the control of future pollution and in the correction of
existing pollution," and that each "agrees to enact adequate
legislation, if necessary." The legislation then says that the
"reciprocal agreement" is "hereby ratified and applied to the
waters and watershed of said Delaware River Basin within the
territorial limits of this State."
The foregoing agreement contains no ereence to the Com-
pact Clause of the Constitution, nor has it received specific
consent of Congress. However, it might be argued that such
an agreement comes within the compass of the provision in the
1911 Weeks Law granting blanket consent of Congress for in-
terstate compacts "for the purpose of conserving the forests
and the water supply of the States" entering into such a
These Acts also declared: a
That part of the area of. the Delaware River Basin
lying within thif State is hereby established and de-
clared to be a component part of an interstate region
for intergovernmental cooperation by said states in the
conservation, protection and development of the water
S resources thereof by means of integrated plans *
tiJhe New York legislation enacts the substance of the uni-
form act, but does not purport to ratify any agreement. How-
ever, It empowers its Department of Health to execute an
agreement with the appropriate agencies of the other States
and to apply to Congress for its consent to such agreement "in
accordance with" the Compact Clause of the Constitution,"
The New York Act recognizes Incodel as the "agency of this
state" for the attainment of in tergovernmental cooperation cor-
recting pollution, as does the legislation of the other States."'
Act of March 1,1911, 1, 36 Stat 961, 16 U. S. C. 552.
mLAws OF DmALWAR 1941, ch. 93, 1; Nzw JEBSET Laws, 1939, ch. 146,
S1; LAws ow PENNSYLVANIA, 1945, No. 128, 11.
LAws or NzW Yomr, 1989, ch. 600, i5 2, 11.

It also declares its portion of the Delaware River Basin to be an
interstate region but only for intergovernmental cooperation
"to correct and eliminate pollution, as herein providedeof the
water resources thereof." "
Diversions of. water from the Delaware River system are
regulated by an interstate water-supply act enacted in similar
form by New Jersey, ew York, and Pennsylvania." These
Acts provide that, whenever the State agency gives its final
approval to any diversion project, "application shall;forthwith
be made tothe Supreme Court of the United States for approval
O suc h project'." I New Jersey. and Pennsylvania, the de-
cision ad approval of the State agency shall be of no force or
effect "unless and until the. project hia been approved by the
Supreme Court of the United States in those cases in which the
said Court retains or assumes jurisdiction in the matter.' The
correspondingNew York provision omits the words which fol-
low "United States."
In 1949, these three States adopted reciprocal legislation
calling upon Incodel to undertake i pestigations to determine
"the feasibility and advisability L the future construction of
an Jinegrated water, pjlect" within the Delaware ver Basin
abve TrentoR, New Jersey." This project is designed tomeet,

NEW JuMAtEr L&Wst, i 4, ch. 121; LTAw)ow NIw YoTB, 1948,ich. 709;
LAws oF PNsNI YLvA A, 19438 No. 198. These Acts each provide .that they
will not take effect untai the state Seeretwry of State certifies that the
other two States lave Onaeted substantlaUy .i*ilar legislatl6n.
'"NEW Jmrss LAWS, 1944, ch. 121, 12; LAWS or NEW, YoPa 043ach.
709, S 1; LAW4 or PENNSIVANIA, 1948, No.198, 12.
*NNEW JESEYLAW, 199, 1 cli 105; LAws or NEW YOBK, 1949, ch 610;
LAws oV PEN S-ILvarA,4~49, No. 475.
.In thi cM~oneetionftwreeeent holdings of the Federal PowerCommission
should be noted. The plans of the City of New York included diversion,qf
water from the Neversink River, a tributary of the Delaware, ta one do
the sources from which its municipal water supply could be drawn. Thi
City entered into an agreement with the' Centrl Hudson Gas & Eletrie
Corporation for construction of a hydroelectric plant in the municipal
aqueduct used for this.diversion. TheFederal Power Commission found
that a license was not required under the Federal Power Act for this plant
because the diversion had been permitted by the United States Supreme
Court in its decree of May 25, 1931 in the case of New Jersey v. New York,
283 U. S. 36, 805. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., F. P. C. Docket

among other purposes, the combined prospective water-ipply
requirements of political subdivisions and metropolitan wreas
in the signatory States both within and outside of such Basin.
Each Act also declares that Incodel "is hereby designated as
the agency and instrumentality" of the enacting State for this
MIssIssipPI RivER.-River-development and control activi-
ties of the Federal Government on the Mississippi River are
chiefly the responsibility of the Army Engineers. Within its
prescribed area, the Mississippi River commission created in
1879, performs these functions.3 The Department of Agri-
culture also has its usual watershed responsibilities relating to
flood control.,
The Mississippi River was the subject of special flood-control
legislation in 1917, 1923,1928, and 1936 prior to the assumption
of greater federal responsibility for flood control nationally
in 1936.i In addition, the general navigation and flood-con-
trol legislation discussed previously governs federal develop-
ment in this Basin.m
Missoum Rlvn BAsiN.-The present stage of efforts toward
comprehensive development of the Missouri Basin may be
portrayed in large part by tracing the history of the Army
Engineer-Bureau of Reclamation plan, commonly called the

DI-18i, February 19, 1948. The Commission made it clear that this de-
termination did not relate to diversions not covered by the Court's decree. A
substantially similar determination was reached by the Commisei o in con-
nection with the hydroelectric plant proposed by the Rockland Jdght &
Power Company for construction on and adjacent to the New York City
agqeduet at the East Branch Tunnel which connects.two municipal water-
supply reservoirs known as the Pepacton Reservoir, on the Bast Branch
of the Delaware and Rondout Reservoir, on Rondout Creek. Rockland LJght
& Power Oompany, F. P. C. Docket E-6220, November 29, 1945.
1 of each Act cited in preceding note above.
SSee supra, p. 98.
See upra, pp. 374-377.
m Act of March 1, 1917, 89 Stat. 948; Act of March 4, 1928, 42 Stat. 1505;
Act of May 15, 1928, 45 Stat. 534; Act of June 15, 1980, 49 Stat. 1508; Act
of June 22, 1936, 49 Stat. 1570. See also supra, pp. 409-410.
s See supr, pp. 91-121, 184-148, 415-418.

"Pick-Sloan" plan, together with attempts to create a Missouri
Valley Authority.-
Pursuant to a 1943 resolution of the House Committee on
Flood Control, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
reviewed certain "308 Reports" to determine if any modifica-
tion should be made with respect to Missouri River main-stem
flood control." The report of this review was submitted in
1944.a After its preparation but prior to its submission, it
was circulated for comment to the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Federal Power Commission, the Department of Agriculture,
and the Bureau of the Budget."
About the same time, the Bureau of Reclamation submitted
its general plan for development of the Missouri River Basin,
This report deals with a plan for the conservation and
control of the water resources of the entire Missouri
River Basin, which includes the northern Great Plains,
and the use of such resources in watershed develop-
ment. Every water resource and all feasible beneficial
uses of water, such as aids to navigation, flood control,
the irrigation of land, the producing of power, the resto-
ration of surface and ground-water levels and of domes-
tic and municipal water supplies, the abatement of
stream pollution, silt control, fish and wildlife preserva-
tion, and recreation, were taken into account in an effort
to formulate a basin-wide plan most likely to yield the
greatest good to the greatest number of people. *
Agriculture is and always will be the primary basis of
$"A Missouri River Commission was created in 1884 to carryout "plank
for the improvement of the navigation of said river, * to make
surveys and devise plans "to maintain a channel and depth of water *
sufficient for *' commerce." Act of July 5, 1884, 1, 23 Stat. 188,
144-145. For a history of the relatively short life of this Commission, see
voL 1, p. 1040.
8"H. Doc. No. 475, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 14 (1944); H. Doc. No. 238,
73d Cong., 2d sess. (1934); H. Doc. No. 821, 76th Cong., 3d sess. (1940).
H. Doc. No. 475, 78th Cong., 2d sess. (1944).
"IId. pp. 1, VII.
SE' Se. Doe. No. 191, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 17 (1944).

the economy of the Missouri River Basin. *
This fact has been recognized in designing a plan for
water-resource development for the basin.
The plan here tendered incorporates the Corps of
Engineers' proposed plans for flood control and aids to
navigation in the river below Sioux City, with some
modifications of Army plans for developments on the
upper river *
A general statement with respect to the Missouri
River Basin and its economic problems, and a compre-
hensive plan for developing and utilizing its water
resources is contained in this report.
Because of differences between the two reports, a committee
composed of two representatives each from the Army Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation was appointed to review and
reconcile the engineering features of the two plans." It pre-
pared a joint engineering report pointing out that by making
appropriate modifications it was possible to eliminate the dif-
ferences, and it enunciated the following basic principles: 87
(a) The Corps of Engineers should have the responsi-
bility for determining main stem reservoir capacities
and capacities of tributary reservoirs for flood control
and navigation.
(b) The Bureau of Reclamation should have the re-
sponsibility for determining the reservoir capacities on
the main stem and tributaries of the Missouri River for
irrigation, the probable extent of future irrigation, and
the amount of stream depletion due to irrigation devel-
(c) Both agencies recognize the importance of the full-
est development of the potential hydroelectric power
in the basin consistent with the other beneficial uses of
As thus modified, the plans of the two agencies were approved
and the initial stages authorized in the Flood Control Act of
Sen. Doc. No. 247, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1 (1944).
*" Ibid.

1944.8" The approved plan became known as the "Pick-
Sloan" plan.'" Additional stages of the Army plan were au-
thorized in 1950.8"
In addition, the Department of Agriculture has recently pre-
pared and submitted to Congress a long-range program for land
rehabilitation and use in the Missouri Basin covering conser-
vation and improvement measures on grassland and cropland,
forests and forest ranges, stabilizing measures for small water
courses, irrigation, and drainage."' This program the Depart-
ment designed as "an integral part of the coordinated Missouri
Basin development." 8"
During congressional consideration of plans for the Missouri
Basin, proposals for a Missouri Valley Authority were also
discussed. In transmitting the report of reconciliation to Con-
gress, the President said that the revised reports of the Army
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation should be authorized
"as a basic engineering plan to be developed and administered
by a Missouri Valley Authority, such as I have already recom-
mended in my message of September 21." 87* The MVA pro-
posals failed to receive committee approval, and an amend-
ment from the floor to create an MVA was withdrawn after as-
surances were given that hearings would be held early in the
next Congress.""
Act of December 22, 1944, g 9, 58 Stat. 887, 891. Appropriations for car-
rying out the Department of the Interior's portion of this development are
made to the Bureau of Reclamation under an express provision by which
they may be expended "either independently or through or in cooperation
with existing Federal and State agencies." See, e. g., Act of July 3, 1945,
1, 59 Stat. 818, 843.
m So named for Maj. Gen. Lewis A. Pick, then Colonel and Division En-
gineer, Corps of Engineers, and W. G. Sloan. then Assistant Regional Direc-
tor, Bureau of Reclamation.
m Act of May 17, 1950, 204, 64 Stat. 163, -.
"H. Doc. No. 873, 81st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 19-20 (1949).
*Id. p. 29.
"President's Message to President of the Senate, November 27, 1944,
90 CoNe. RE 8479 (1944).
m"90 CoNG. REc. 8626-8628 (1944), In addition, Senator Hill, acting ma-
jority leader (see id. p. 8629), said, "I understand the declaration of policy
which was in the bill, which the author of the Missouri Valley Authority
bill thought might be prejudicial to the M. V. A. bill, has now been stricken
from the bill, and the provision in the bill creating the Missouri River

Accordingly, an MVA bill was reintroduced the following
year, and since it embraced matters within the jurisdiction of
several separate Congressional Committees, the Senate ordered
its Committees on Irrigation and Reclamation, on Agriculture
and Forestry, and on Commerce, each to report on those fea-
tures of the bill falling within its jurisdiction.8 The first two
of these Committees recommended against adoption of the
proposal, contending that approval of the "Pick-Sloan" plan
had made it unnecessary, and that existing agencies were doing
a satisfactory job.87 The Committee on Agriculture and For-
estry merely recommended postponing further hearings indefi-
nitely.80 Subsequent MVA proposals have been introduced
but no further action has been taken.3

Commiszlon has also been stricken out. So that as the bill now stands, as
I understand, there is nothingin it which would be prejudicial, or inimical,
let me say, to the creation of a Missouri Valley Authority. As I under-
stand, by the passage of the bill we would take the lirst step which the
President recommended. The second step would be the creation ,of the
Missouri Valley Authority. As I stated previously, I favor a Missouri Valley
Authority." Id. p. 8627.
The stricken language referred to.by Senator Hill read, "It is the purpose
of this act to establish a deflate policy of making use of existing. Federal
agencies for the construction, operation, and maintenance of all public Im-
provements in connection with navigation, flood control, and allied actvi-
ties; to insure coordinated operation of all Federal projects therein for the
Improvement of navigation and alleviation of flood conditions; to provide
for realization of other benefits to be derived from such projects; to facili-
tate preparations and planning for post-war construction by the Federal
Government in the interest of employment; and to secure efficient executive
management under the direction and supervision of the permanent execu-
tive agencies already established by Act of Congress." Id. p. 8243.
m S. 555 and Sen. Res. 97, both 79th Cong., 1st sess. (1945).
Sen. Reps No. 246, 79th Cong, 1st sess, p. 1 (1945); Sen. Rep. No. 639,
Part 1, 79th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1 (1945). The Commerce Committee also
said: "Flood control is not a Missouri regional problem, any more than it is
a local problem. Flood control is a Mississippi Basin-wide problem in which
the Missouri River is only one of the tributaries. The flood-control prob-
lem of the Mississippi Basin can be solved only by Federal control by one
agency, with authority over the entire Mississippi Basin. The agency best
qualified for this task by experience and training is the United States Army
Engineers." Sen. Rep. No. 246, p. 2.
SSen. Rep. No. 889, 79th Cong., 2d sess. (1946).
SS. 1156, 80th Cong., 1st Bess. (1947) ; S. 1160 and H. R. 3522, 81st Cong,,
1st sess. (1949). See also H. R, 894, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949) (Rankin
Bill for Conservation Authorities).

NEW ENGLAND-NEW YORK.--Here, the current situation is
similar to that in the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins.
Proposals had been advanced for a New England-New York
Resources Survey Commission."m In recommending such a
Commission, the President said: s
New York and the New England States have real
and serious problems of soil and forest conservation and
management, and of controlling and using water
to prevent floods, to provide domestic and industrial
water supplies, and to furnish low-cost hydroelectric
power. *
We have gradually come to understand that, if best
results are to be achieved, these problems should be con-
sidered together, and met by comprehensive planning
and action which recognizes the close inter-relationship
of land and water and their manifold uses.
But the Flood Control Act of 1950 authorized the Army Engi-
neers to conduct an examination of the "Merrimack and Con-
necticut Rivers and their tributaries, and such other streams
in the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu-
setts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, where power develop-
ment appears feasible and practicable, to determine the hydro-
electric potentialities, in combination with other water and
resource development." s'
Referring to requests that the survey be coordinated with
the Federal Power Commission, the Senate Committee on
Public Works said: 8
The committee considers that under existing laws and
administrative procedures, the Federal Power Commis-
sion has full authority to make surveys of this type and
to coordinate such surveys with those of the Corps of
Engineers and other agencies. It is understood that this
SS. 2847 (H. R. 7062) superseding S. 1899; later superseded by S. 3707
(H. R. 8747) all 81st Cong.
"President's letter to President of the Senate, dated February 9, 1950,
96 CONG. RsO. 1697-1698 (1950).
'8 Act of May 17, 1950, 205, 64 Stat. 163, -.
Sne. Rep. No. 1143,81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 71 (1949).

survey will be fully coordinated between the Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Power Commission, and State
and local agencies.
In approving the bill, the President noted several objections
to this provision." Among other things, he objected to the
authorization to a single agency, the Army Engineers; the em-
phasis on power, rather than a comprehensive resource survey
on a multiple-purpose basis; and the geographic limitation to
New England, whereas New England and New York need to
be considered as a unit, even from the single viewpoint of power
development. He reiterated his recommendation thatCongress
create : New Eigland-New York Survey Commission,
saying: S
JIn the meantime, although I consider it an inade-
quate remedy, I shall issue instructions to the appropri-
ate Federal agencies to work together and with the
States in preparing as much of a combined resource de-
velopment plan for this area as existing law will permit.
: The President later directed the six agencies represented on
the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee to organize
a temporary interagency committee to undertake such a survey
arid report to him by July 1, 1952.888 Among the subjects to be
covered are electric power generation and transmission, forest
management, fish and wildlife conservation, flood control, min-
eral development, municipal and industrial water supply, navi-
gation, pollution control, recreation, and soil conservation. The
committee is directed to "coordinate its plans and activities
with those of the interested State and local agencies" and to
consult with the Department of State on matters involving
international waters. These matters include the St. Lawrence
Seaway, Niagara River and Passamaquoddy, already men-
SH. Doc. No. 597, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 3 (1950).
7 1bid.
Letters from the President to each of the six agency heads, dated October
9, 1950; New York Times, October 12, 1950, p. 27, col. 1. Establishment of
Interagency Committee, Minutes, FIARBC, October 27, 1950, Exhibit D.
See supra, pp. 309-311.

OHIO RIVE BASIN.-Two programs of development for the
Ohio River Basin should be noted. These are the flood-control
programs of the Army Engineers and the recent pollution-con-
trol program of the Ohio RiverValley Sanitation Commission.
In 1930, Congress approved the Army Engineer "308 Report"
for the Ohio River." Two years later, it approved a "general
comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the
Ohio River Basin." "
In 1936, Congressgranted its consent to the States in the
Ohio River Basin to enter into an interstate compact for pollu-
tion control. Congress approved the negotiated compact in
1940."' The compact created an Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission consisting of three Commissioners representing
each signatory State and three representing the United States."
The Commission was directed to "make a comprehensive report
for the prevention and reduction of stream pollution" in the
Sanitation District created by the compact."
It is also empowered to recommend uniform legislation deal-
ing with pollution problems of the District, to consult with
and advise the States, and to issue orders upon "any munici-
pality, corporation, person or other entity discharging sewage
or industrial waste" into the Ohio or certain other interstate
streams.8 Such an order to be effective must receive the
Act of June 22, 196, 5, 49 Stat. 1570, 1586; H. Doc. No. 306, 74th Cong.,
1st sess. (1986). In addition to the "308 Report," a flood-control survey had
been authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928, 1 0, 45 Stat. 534,538.
,"Act of June 28, 1988, 14, 52 Stat 1215, 1217; Com. Doc. No. 1, House.
Committee on Flood Control, 75th Cong., 1st seas. (1937). This plan was
approved with "such modiffiations thereof as in the discretion of the Secre-
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable." It has since
been amended and supplemented. Act of August 11, 1939, 4, 53 Stat. 1414;
Act of August 18, 1941, 3, 55 Stat. 638, 646; Act of December 22, 1944, 1 10,
58 Stat. 887, 898; Act of July 24, 1946, 10, 60 Stat. 641, 649; Act of June 30,
1948, 5 203, 62 Stat. 1171, 1177; Act of May 17, 1950, 204, 64 Stat. 163, -.
In addition to this, a "comprehensive" plan for the Cumberland River was
approved in the Act of July 24, 1946, 1, 60 Stat. 634, 636. See H. Doe. No.
761, 79th Cong., 2d sess.. (1946).
H. J. Res. 377 of June 8, 1936, 49 Stat. 1490.
Act of July 11, 1940, 54 Stat. 752.
Arts. III, IV, 54 Stat. 753.
SArt. VIII, 54 Stat. 754.
m Arts. VIII, IX, 54 Stat. 754, 755.

assent of a majority of the Commissioners from each of a
majority of the signatory States, including a majority of the
Commissioners of the State where the pollution originates.8
There is also provision for securing court enforcement of these
The pending question as to the validity of West Virginia's
participation in this compact arrangement has been discussed
earlier.' ..
PorTO>ac Rvimv BASN.--Here, an arrangement exists simi-
lar in some respects to that in the Delaware River Basin,
except that Congress has specifically consented to the inter-
state agreement."0
This compact creates an Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin to dealwith pollution control and abate-
ment.c1 The Commission consists of three representatives
of each signatory State, three of the District of Columbia,
and three appointed by the President."2
Sit acts in an advisory capacity, seeking to promote uniform
anti-pollution legislation by the signatory bodies."8 The
Commission has established four advisory committees, namely
a technical committee, an industrial committee, a local govern-
ment committee, and a land committee,0" It does not have
power to appropriate funds or to administer plans or projects.
It should also be noted that, in addition to pollution, this
Commission has expressed its interest in use of surface and
subsurface waters, soil conservation, general economic develop-
ment, forest practices and reforestation, flood control, and

Art. IX, 54 Stat. 755.
Art. IX, 54 Stat. 55.
See supra, pp. 68-70.
SSen. J. Res. 222 of July 11, 1940, 54 Stat. 748.
4 Preamble, 54 Stat. 748.
SArt. I, 54 Stat. 749.
Art. II, 54 Stat. 749.
BAsIN, pp. 8-9 (1946-1948).
PEoeBAM, pp. 8-9 (1946).

Rio GRANDE BAsIN.-The situation in the Rio Grande Basin
offers an illustration of the use of the treaty power in the
development of a river basin.4
In 1924, Congress authorized the President to appoint com-
missioners to cooperate with Mexican representatives in a
study regarding the equitable use of the waters of the lower
Rio Grande with a view to their proper utilization for irriga-
tion and other beneficial uses.'" By a 1927 amendment, this
authorization was extended to include a study of the lower Colo-
rado River, and to make the purpose of the study the securing
of information on which to base a treaty with Mexico relative
to the use of the waters of these Rivers.'
The study was again broadened in 1935, this time to include
the Tijuana River, arid the purposes of the proposed treaty
were enlarged to include use of the waters of these Rivers and
"matters closely related thereto." '" This 1935 legislation also
authorized the American Commissioner of the International
Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico,
to conduct technical and other investigations in relation to
defining the international boundary, to flood control, to water
resources, to conservation and utilization of water, and to sani-
tation and other related matters upon the boundary."0 More-
over, the President was empowered to construct, operate, and
maintain on the Rio Grande all works or projects recommended
as a result 6f such investigations and which he deems necessary
and proper, or any project which may be provided for in a treaty
with Mexico.41
The treaty between Mexico and the United States was nego-
tiated in 1944 and became effective in 1945.12 It recited that
m See supra, pp. 56-57.
Act of May 18, 1924, 5 1, 43 Stat. 118, as amended, 22 U. 8. C. 277.
*H. J. Res. 345 of March 8, 1927, 44 Stat. 1403, as amended, 22 U. S. C.
SAct of August 19, 1935, 49 Stat. 660, as amended, 22 U. S. C. 277.
*49 Stat. 660, as amended, 22 U. S. C. 277a. The Commission was then
known as the International Boundary Commission, United States and
Mexico. For its current title, see Treaty Series 994, Art. 2, 59 Stat. 1219,
49 Stat. 660, as amended, 22 U. S. C. 277b.
Treaty Series 994, 59 Stat. 1219 (1945).

previous treaties regulated the use of waters for navigation
only and that it was desirable to fix the rights of the two Coun-
tries in order to obtain "the most complete and satisfactory
utilization" of the waters of the Rio Grande and the Colorado
and Tijuana Rivers."' The treaty also provides for allocation
of waters to each country,"" construction of main channel
works,"1 investigations and preparation of plans for flood-con-
trol work and hydroelectric power-generation works,' reser-
voir regulation,"8 and operation of the projects."9
TENNESSEE VALLEY.-In 1933, the Federal Government un-
dertook the basin-wide development of the Tennessee River
Valley for multiple uses, under unified legislation designed: o
to improve the navigability and provide for the flood
control of the Tennessee River; to provide for reforesta-
tion and the proper use of marginal lands in the Ten-
nessee Valley; to provide for the agricultural and indus-
trial development of said Valley; to provide for the
national defense.
Federal navigation development of the Tennessee River was
initiated as early as 1827.21 The idea of a dual-purpose proj-
ect appeared in 1899 when Congress authorized nonfederal
construction of a canal and power station."' In 1906, a private
power company proposed a joint investment with the Govern-
ment in a navigation and power project, but this and other
similar plans were rejected by Congress." Federal improve-
Preamble. 59 Stat. 1220.
4" Art. 4, 59 Stat. 1225; Art. 10, 59 Stat. 1237.
Art. 5, 59 Stat. 1228; Art. 12, 59 Stat. 1239.
Art. 6, 59 Stat. 1230; Art. 13, 59 Stat. 1241; Art. 16, 59 Stat. 1249.
"'Art. 7, 59 Stat. 1231.
Art. 8 59 Stat. 1231
4 Art. 5, 59 Stat. 1228; Art. 6, 59 Stat. 1230; Art. 7, 59 Stat. 1231.
Act of May 18, 1933, 48 Stat. 58, as amended, 16 1. S. C. 831-83idd.
r"Act of March 2, 1827, 4 Stat. 228. See also 17 AMERICAN STATE PAPEBB:
MnITARY AFFAIMS, Vol. II, pp. 698-701 (Lowrie and Franklin ed. 1834).
The history of federal development of this area and the origin and back-
ground of TVA legislation are set out in Sen. Doc. No. 56, 76th Cong., 1st
sess., pp. 11-16 (1939).
"'Act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1351. However, this project was not
undertaken. See Sen. Doc. No. 56, p. 11.
See Sen. Doe. No. 56, p. 12.

ment of the River nevertheless continued. An Army Engineer
report in 1916 showed that nearly $10,000,OO0 had. been spent
on the River, with some improvement to navigation but without
completion of the work.'2
With the problems of World War I came action significant
here. The National Defense Act of 1916 authorized the Presi-
dent to determine the best means of producing nitrates, and
to build dams and power equipment for this purpose.'" Al-
though not fully equipped, two nitrate plants were built at
Muscle Shoals; and Wilson Dam, the most important of three
planned by the Army Engineers, was completed in 1925.'"
After the war, various attempts were made to find a use for
the Muscle Shoals plants. A bill to set up a government cor-
poration to sell fertilizer and power failed of passage in the
House.427 Senator Norris then introduced a bill to create a
Federal Chemical Corporation, with a three-man board, to
manufacture and sell fertilizer."8 It would have provided for
dams on the Tennessee and its tributaries, for navigation, flood
control, and power.' Power not needed in producing fertilizer
or explosives-"surplus power"-was to be sold, with prefer-
ence to municipalities.5 This bill foreshadowed the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act by more than ten years, stating the prin-
ciple of surplus power later to be accepted by the Supreme
Court in the Ashwander case.
Meanwhile, various proposals for private operation of the
Muscle Shoals plants were rejected by Congress as a result of
a Senate Committee report which declared that consideration

*H. Doe. No. 981, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (1916); see also Sen. Doe. No.
56, 76th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12 (1939).
4 Act of June 3, 1916, 124, 39 Stat. 166, 215, 31 U. S. C. 745.
See Sen. Doc. No. 56, 76th Cong., 1st sess., p. 13 (1939). Steam-power
plants were also constructed at these plants. See Sen. Rep. No. 678, 68th
Cong., 1st sess., p. 6 (1924).
"S. 3390 and H. R. 10329, 66th Cong., 1st sess. (1919); 60 CONG. REc.
812-13 (1920).
S. 3420, 67th Cong., 2d sess. (1922).
Sen. Rep. No. 831, 67th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 32-84 (1922).
S"Id. p. 30.
4" Ahwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288 (1936); see
supra, pp. 50-52, 54-55.

should be given to the river system as a whole in planning its
development for navigation, flood control, and power.," On
the other hand, a bill creating a federal corporation to produce
and sell fertilizer and power, and authorizing a dam on Cove
Creek, now Norris Dam, was passed by. Congress in 1928 but
was pocket-vetoed by President Coolidge." A similar bill was
vetoed by President Hoover on March 3, 1931.'
Meanwhile, an exhaustive study over a five-year period had
led to authorization of a project in the 1930 River and Harbor
Act looking to a nine-foot channel to be obtained by building
either 32 low dams or seven high dams." The report recom-
mended the low dams with a proviso that a high dam under a
Federal Power Commission license could be substituted for any
two or more low dams." In such case, the United States
should contribute to the cost of the nonfederal high dam the
amount which the replaced navigation works would have dost.
The Act directed the Chief of Engineers to ascertain the pros-
pective cooperation in such construction of the high dams by
"responsible interests." He later reported that no definite
assurance of early cooperation had been received."
In 1933, President Roosevelt recommended legislation to
create a Tennessee Valley Authority as a corporation: "

SSen. Rep. No. 678, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 8-9 (1924); Sen. Rep. No.
831, pp. 82-88. See Sen. Doc. No. 56, 76th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 18-14 (1989).
Sen. J. Res. 46, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (1928); H. Bep. No. 1096, 70th
Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1-8 (1928) ; Sen Doc. No. 56, p. 14.
SSen. J. Res. 49, 71st Cong., 3d sess.; Sen. Doe. No. 321, 71st Cong., 8d
sess. (1981).
"H. Doe. No. 828, 71st Cong., 2d seas. (1980); Act of July 3, 1980, 1 1,
46 Stat. 918, 927-28.
H. Doe. No. 828, pp. 6-7.
1 1, 46 Stat. 928.
-H. Doc. No. 131, 72d Cong., 1st sess., p. 2 (1931). For a discussion of
the effect of the TVA Act on congressional authorization of this project, see
Tennessee Blectrio Power Co. v. Tennessee VaUey Authority, 21 F. Supp. 947,
958 (D. C. Tenn. 1988) aflsrmed, 806 U. S. 118 (1939).
"H. Doc. No. 15, 78d Cong, 1st seas. (198). The President also said,
"It is clear that the Muscle Shoals development is but a small part of the
potential public usefulness of the entire Tennessee River. Such use, if
envisioned in its entirety, transcends mere power development: it enters the
wide fields of flood control, soil erosion, afforestation, elimination from agri-
cultural use of marginal lands, and distribution and diversification of in-

charged with the broadest duty of planning for the
proper use, conservation, and development of the nat-
ural resources of the Tennessee River drainage basin and
its adjoining territory for the general social and economic
welfare of the Nation.
The Tennessee Valley Authority Act, enacted shortly there-
after, provides for creation of a government corporation for the
purpose of "maintaining and operating the properties of the
United States at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in the interests of
national defense and for agricultural and industrial develop-
ment, and to improve navigation in the Tennessee River and to
control the destructive flood waters in the Tennessee River
and Mississippi River Basins." 0
Among other things, the Authority is empowered to con-
struct such dams and reservoirs as will maintain a nine-foot
channel in the Tennessee River and will best serve to pro-
mote navigation and control floods." It is also empowered to
construct, acquire, and maintain power facilities, to promote
soil conservation, and stimulate fertilizer use."' And the

dustry. In short, this power development of war days leads logically to
national planning for a complete river watershed involving many States and
the future lives and welfare of millions. It touches and gives life to all
forms of human concerns.
"I, therefore, suggest to the Congress legislation to create a Tennessee
Valley Authority-a corporation clothed with the power of Government but
possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise. It should
be charged with the broadest duty of planning for the proper use, conserva-
tion, and development of the natural resources of the Tennessee River drain-
age basin and its adjoining territory for the general social and economic
welfare of the Nation. This Authority should also be clothed with the
necessary power to carry these plans into effect. Its duty should be the
rehabilitation of the Muscle Shoals development and the coordination of it
with the wider plan." Id. pp. 1-2.
SAct of May 18, 1983, I 1, 48 Stat. 58, as amended, 16 U. S. C. 881. In
connection with the constitutional aspects of this legislation, see Swidler
and Marquis, TVA in Court: A Study of TVA's Constitutional Litigation,
32 IowA L. REV. 296 (1947).
4, 48 Stat. 60, as amended, 16 U. S. C. 831c(j).
$ 5, 48 Stat. 61, as amended, 16 U. S. C. 831d; 9a, as added by Act of
August 31, 1985, 5, 49 Stat. 1075, 1076, 16 U. S. C. 831h-1; $ 10, 48 Stat.
s, s amended, 16 U. S, C. 8311,


Authority is given broad power to enable it to carry out the
responsibilities with which it is charged."
The operation of dams and reservoirs is to be primarily for
the purposes of promoting navigation and controlling floods,
with operation for power generation to be consistent with these
primary purposes.'"
Under the terms of the Act, the President is directed to
recommend legislation for comprehensive development of the
Tennessee drainage basin which would foster the "orderly and
proper physical, economic, and social development" of the
area.' In addition, such recommended legislation must be
for the declared special purpose of bringing about: "
(1) the maximum amount of flood control; (2) the max-
imum development of said Tennessee River for naviga-
tion purposes; (3) the maximum generation of electric
Power consistent with flood control and navigation; (4)
the proper use of marginal lands; (5) the proper method
of reforestation of all lands in said drainage basin suit-
able for reforestation; and (6) the economic and social
well-being of the people living in the said river basin.
Strongly endorsing this unified river control, the Joint Con-
gressional Committee which investigated TVA in 1939,

'See principally 4, 5, 48 Stat. 60, 61, as amended, 16 U. S. C. 831c,
g 9a, as added by Act of August 31, 19, 5, 49 Stat. 1075,1076,16 U. S. 0.
22, 48 Stat. 69, 16 U. S. C. 831u. By Ex. O. No. 6161, June 8, 1933, the
President directed TVA to make such general plans as may be "necessary
and suitable to aid the proper use, conservation, and development of the
natural resources of the Tennessee River drainage basin, and of such adjoin-
ing territory as may be related to or materially affected by the development
consequent to this act, and to promote the general welfare of the citizens of
said area."
23, 48 Stat. 69, 16 U. S. C. 831v. By the 1935 amendment, the TVA
Board was directed to report to Congress a recommendation for the united
development of the Tennessee River system. Act of August 31, 1935, S 2,
49 Stat. 1075,16 U. S. C. 831c(j) note following.
Sen. Doc. No. 56, 76th Cong., 1st sess., p. 236 (1989).

The value of the Authority lies in providing the only
method by which all the uses of the river can be brought
within reach of the public.
TVA's operating divisions are organized into four principal
groupings: those having to do with water control in the chan-
nel; those dealing with land rehabilitation and water control
on the land; those dealing with power transmission and utiliza-
tion; and those dealing with health, recreation, and community
TVA represents a unique type of governmental organization
for resource development. Its former Chairman, David Lilien-
thal, has stated that the three essential features of the TVA
idea are:"
A federal autonomous agency, with authority to make
its decisions in the region.
Responsibility to deal with resources, as a unified
whole, clearly fixed in the regional agency, not divided
among several centralized federal agencies.
A policy, fixed by law, that the federal regional agency
work cooperatively with and through local and state

Judicial Views on Comprehensive Development
by the United States
We have previously discussed numerous cases which have
affirmed federal authority to regulate or control many aspects
of water-resource development.* Among them, two recent
decisions of the Supreme Court merit particular note here.
SUMrrD STATES GOVEzBnMir OnOAwIATroN MANuAI, p. 528 (1950).
Under the Office of Chief Engineer are the divisions of Water Control Plan-
ning, Design, and Construction. Under the Office of Manager of Power are
the divisions of Power Utilization, Power Operations, and Power Engineering
and Construction. The Office of Chief Conservation Engineer controls the
divisions of Chemical Engineering, Agricultural Relations, and Forestry Re-
lations. The Office of Manager of Reservoir and Community Relations has
charge of the divisions of Regional Studies, Health and Safety, and Reser-
voir Properties.
*"Lilienthal, TVA-DEMocRACy ON THE MABCH, p. 153 (1944).
"* See srpra, pp. 5-72.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs