Title: International Waters
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003112/00001
 Material Information
Title: International Waters
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: President's Water Resources Policy
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collections - International Waters
General Note: Box 12, Folder 9 ( Water Resources Law - Vol #3 - 1950 ), Item 30
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003112
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

crimination as between consumers of the same class." 00 A
provision for regulation of resale rates must be included in con-
tracts with systems engaged in distribution for profit."
STVA has taken over several steam-electric generating plants,
and Congress has on occasions approved the use of funds for
construction of steam-electric generating facilities. 02
Unlike some situations previously mentioned, the Federal
Power Commission here has no responsibilities as to cost allo-
cation or as to rates.

International Waters
A number of treaties and statutes relating to international
waters permit or limit their use for power development. For
example, Congress has prescribed particularized provisions re-
lating to certain international waters in Northern Minne-
sota." And we have previously noted the relevant func-
tions of the International Joint Commission,"' and the Inter-
national Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
Mexico."0 In connection with the latter, mention should be
made of a recent treaty relating to the Colorado and Tijuana
Rivers and the Rio Grande.' Under its provisions, the Fal-
con Dam on the Rio Grande is to be built by the latter Com-
mission, for whom the Bureau of Reclamation is preparing
the plans and specifications.307
At'Niagara Falls, diversions for power have long been made
under the provisions of agreements between the United States
and Canada.308 On the United States side, power is now de-

"H Res. 583, July 31, 1940, 76th Cong., 3d sess. (1940); Pub. Res. 95,
54 Stat. 781; see also supra, n. 193, p. 290.
8 Act of July 10, 1930, 46 Stat. 1020, 16 U. S. C. 577-577b.
See supra, pp. 121-122, 148.
SSee supra, pp. 122-123, 148-149.
Effective November 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1219.
"Act of October 5, 1949, 63 Stat. 701.
See Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, Act of Jan-
uary 11, 1909, 36 Stat. 2448; exchange of notes between United States and
Canada at Washington on May 20, 1941, 55 Stat. 1276, on October 27 and
November 27, 1941, 55 Stat. 1380, and on December 23, 1948, S. Ex. 3., 81st
Cong., 1st sess. (1949).

veloped under the provisions of a license issued by the Federal
Power Commission." A 1950 treaty makes further perma-
nent allocations of Niagara River waters for domestic, naviga-
tion, scenic, and power purposes, terminating parts of the 1909
Treaty and replacing temporary agreements."m On August
9, 1950, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification
of the treaty, reserving the right to provide by act of Congress
for redevelopment, for public use and benefit, of the United
States' share of the waters."m This reservation retains in the
hands of Congress control over redevelopment for power pur-
poses, rather than allowing it to be governed by the Federal
Power Act. The Canadian Government accepted the reser-
vation, and the treaty was ratified on October 10, 1950.M"
This portion of our survey would be incomplete without a
passing reference to St. Lawrence and Passamaquoddy. For
over 50 years the United States and Canada have discussed
joint development of the St. Lawrence Seaway as a naviga-
tion and power project." In 1932, the two Governments
signed a treaty to provide a basis for such a development, but
it failed of ratification in the Senate in 1934."' Subsequently,
in 1941, an agreement was signed by the two Governments
which was to be made effective by concurrent legislation of the
Canadian Parliament and of the United States." A resolu-
tion approving this agreement was defeated in the Senate in

SNiagara Falls Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 187 F. 2d 787
(C. A. 2,1943), cert. den., reh. den., 820 U. S. 792, 815 (1948).
m See Ex. N, 81st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 6-8 (1960).
m96 CONG. B M. 12294-12296 (unbound ed.); see Ix. Rep. No. 11, 81st
Cong., 2d sess., p.7 (1960).
m New York Times, October 11, 1950, p. 85, col. 1.
For recent histories of these proposals, see TxH ST. LAWEENCE SuBVyr,
Part I, United States Department of Commerce (1941); Sen. Rep. No. 810,
80th Cong., 2d ses. (1948).
m" See El. C, 72d Cong., 2d sess. (1988); 78 CONo. Rac. 4474-4475 (1984).
The vote was: 46 yeas, 42 nays, 3 paired, and 5 not voting.
"H. Doc. No. 153, 77th Cong., 1st sees. (1941).
r Sen. J. Res. 111, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (1947); Sen. Rep. No. 810, 80th
Cong., 2d ses. (1948) ; 94 Cow. REo. 1858 (1948). The vote torecommit was:
57 yeas, 80 nays, 6 paired, and 3 not voting.

A recent proposal would direct the President to negotiate
an agreement with New York State for transfer of the power
facilities on the United $tatee side to an agency of the State
of New York, such agreement to protect the interests of other
States and of the United Statesa 4 Now pending before the
Federal Power Commission are exceptions filed to a decision
of the Presiding Examiner ordering dismissal of a license ap-
plication by The Power Authority of the State of New York,
and that the matter he referred to Congress with a recom-
mendation for development by the United States."
In 1935, construction of a power project utilizing tidal power
at Passamaquoddy was undertaken briefly and abandoned.9

Laws respecting the control of water for multiple uses, in-
cluding development of power, have been influenced by basic
factors affecting the life of man-hydrologic conditions, com-
petition among uses of water, and differing economic conditions.
Since 1879, legislative attention to these factors has progres-
sively increased. Thus, 1906 and 1910 legislation supplied
generally applicable conditions for nonfederal power devel-
opment on navigable waters, but made no provision for a charge
for the privilege, or for disposition of the properties upon ter-
mination of the grant. Restrictive conditions in grants were
few and varied. Early government reports emphasized the
power and multiple-purpose aspects of water-resource develop-
ments. And presidential veto messages reflected views that
power should be developed at, and aid in financing, federal
navigation improvements, that grants for nonfederal devel-
opment should contain a definite time limit to permit the pub-
lic to iretin control, and that charges for the privilege should

SH. J. Bee. 271, 81st Cong., 2d sess. Hearings were held before the
House Committee on Publie Works in April and May 1950, but it has not
yet submitted a report.
See suprK, n. 125, pp. 280-281.
For a recent history, see BHEowr TO INTEmNATIONAL JOINT COMMISxION ON
I PoJrmr, International Pass imaquoddy angineer Board (March 1950).

legislative authorizations were on- a project-by-project basis
and imposed no charge for the privilege granted. Grants were
perpetual in terms but subject to termination. With the un-
certainty of a grantee's tenure and investment, private develop-
ment had moved slowly.
In 1920, Congress passed the Federal Water Power Act regu.
larizing federal permission for nonfederal development through
a licensing system. The Act and its history reflect a purpose
to encourage nonfederal development While safeguarding the
public interest and making possible ultimate public ownership.
The Federal Power Commission has broad authority td con-
duct investigations and surveys, including its power-market
studies. This authority and other provisions point to Com-
mission consideration of multiple uses of projects and of com-
prehensive development.
The Commission's licensing authority extends to waters un-
der the jurisdiction of Congress and generally to public lands.
No license may be issued when in the Commission's judgment
the development should be undertaken by the United States.
Preference is accorded to states aid "municipalities." At the
end of the license period, which may not exceed 50 years, the
United States has an option to take, over the project at an
acquisition price determined under a prescribed formula. Pro-
vision is made for certain charges, but none for the license
privilege, as such.
In 1935, provisions were added for certain regulation of in-
terstate electric utilities, including their interstate wholesale
rates, securities, and.accounting. ''
FEDERAL DEVjELOrP NT AND O1iATION.--As the desirability
of increased conservation and utilization of water resources and
the necessity for greater flood protection have become more
generally recognized, Congress has extended legislative author-
izations toward more and larger federal multiple-use projects,
including development of power-relying principally upon the
Army Engineers and the Department of the Interior. In con-
nection with navigation and flood-control improvements, a

number of laws provide for multiple uses and particularly for
development of power. So also as to reclamation projects.
Throughout the country, the Federal Power Commission
makes power-market surveys. Such surveys are also made by
other agencies for particular regions.
Authorizations for marketing of federal power are confined
almost entirely to wholesaling. Surplus power generated at
Army reservoir projects must be so marketed by the Secretary
of the Interior as to encourage widespread use at lowest pos-
sible rates consistent with sound business principles. He also
controls marketing of power generated at reclamation projects.
Here, power may aid in repaying irrigation costs. In market-
ing of all federal power, preference is generally accorded to pub-
lic bodies and cooperatives. Federal transmission lines are
authorized by statutes with varying limitations.
In addition to the foregoing, Congress has separately pro-
vided for multiple-purpose projects and for the generation and
marketing of power at particular localities and in prescribed
regions. Examples are the Boulder Canyon and Fort Peck
Projects. The Bonneville Power Administration is also an
example of special treatment of the role of power in multiple-
purpose projects, dealing with a series of large dams on one
river system, the Columbia. But the governing statutory pro-
visions are varied from project to project within that river
system. In the case of TVA, coordinated multiple uses of
water under comprehensive river-basin development is largely
controlled by a single government corporation under uniform
The duties of two international commissions concern multi-
ple uses of different international waters, including the develop-
ment of power.

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