United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch Same v. Burns Same v. Lollis Same v. Bradshaw Same v. Rust Same v. Hyatt 533

• Citation: 66 S.Ct. 715,327 U.S. 546,90 L.Ed. 843
• Decision Date: 25 March 1946
• Docket Number: Nos. 528,s. 528
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY v. WELCH. SAME v. BURNS et al. SAME v. LOLLIS et al. SAME v. BRADSHAW et al. SAME v. RUST et al. SAME v. HYATT et al. to 533
• Court: United States Supreme Court

327 U.S. 546

66 S.Ct. 715

90 L.Ed. 843

UNITED STATES ex rel. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

v WELCH.

SAME

v. BURNS et al.

SAME

v. LOLLIS et al.

SAME

v. BRADSHAW et al.

SAME

v. RUST et al.

SAME

v. HYATT et al.

Nos. 528 to 533.

Argued March 7, 1946.

Decided March 25, 1946.

Mr.Joseph C. Swidler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for petitioner.

Mr. McKinley Edwards, of Bryson City, N.C., for respondent Welch.

Mr. George H. Ward, of Asheville, N.C., for other respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from page 547 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States, on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, filed petitions in the District Court to condemn six tracts of land located in North Carolina and owned by the several respondents. It asserted that the power to condemn the land in question was conferred upon the Authority by the provisions of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act as amended. 48 Stat. 58 as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 831—831dd, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 831—831dd. The District Court held that the Act did not authorize condemnations under the facts shown by the evidence and dismissed the petitions. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 4 Cir., 150 F.2d 613. Since the grant of power to condemn needed properties is an essential part of the Act, we granted certiorari, 326 U.S. 714, 66 S.Ct. 266.

The following basic facts form the background of this proceeding: Congress in 1942 in order to meet pressing power needs for war production empo ered the Authority to construct Fontana Dam, on the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina. H.Rep. 1470; 77th Cong. 1st Sess. 25. The dam is one of the world's largest and creates a reservoir twenty-nine miles long. Between this reservoir and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park lie forty-four thousand acres of mountainous land, including the tracts which the government wants to condemn here. When Congress authorized construction of the dam, two hundred and sixteen families occupied this area. Their only convenient means of ingress and egress, except for foot trails, was North Carolina Highway No. 288, a road approximately fifty miles in length. When the dam was built the reservoir flooded most of the highway, rendering it useless for travel. As a result the area remained practically isolated.

As events have shown, the problem this situation created could not be easily solved. Any solution had to take into consideration the interests of the United States, of North Carolina, and of Swain County, N.C., as well as the in- terests of the individuals affected. The United States' interest was that of the T.V.A. and the National Park Service. The T.V.A. had a dual interest. First, the isolated area, while not actually submerged by the reservoir, was a part of the watershed. Left in private hands it could be used to frustrate some of the objectives of T.V.A. legislation. Second, the fact that the dam had caused the highway to be flooded created a serious problem for the inhabitants and landowners in the area who had been damaged by the project. It was the statutory duty of the T.V.A. to attempt to bring about proper adjustments in order to alleviate resulting hardship and inconvenience. At the same time, the T.V.A. was not supposed to waste the money of the United States. The United States' interest in the land through the National Park Service was due to the fact that this particular area had been included in the Great Smoky Mountains Park project. Had this land been actually owned by the United States for park purposes it would have been easier to subject it to servitudes in the interest of the T.V.A. development. North Carolina was interested in the land because it was its duty to continue to hold and maintain a highway so long as its citizens continued to live within the area. Swain County had a similar interest. It had issued bonds to finance building the highway. Part of the bond issue was still outstanding.

Conferences between the interested groups brought to light facts which led to the solution ultimately adopted. It was agreed on all sides that the old road was narrow, dangerous, and far below modern standards for useful highways. Investigation showed that replacement of the old road with the same undesirable type of highway would cost about $1,400,000, while the cost of building an improved highway would greatly exceed that amount. All parties felt that the United States had neither a legal nor moral duty to build a new road of the superior type and quality needed. This meant that type of road could only be built if North Carolina would bear the additional expense. Since the highway carried no through traffic and serviced so few people, the state was not willing to pay for the added cost and all parties agreed that such an expenditure would be wasteful and unjustifiable. The War Production Board presented further obstacles. It was of the opinion that the road was not sufficiently essential to warrant use of the materials and manpower its construction would require. For these and other reasons North Carolina objected to the T.V.A.'s settling the controversy by a mere payment of damages to it for injury to the road and by the payment of damages to individual owners for destroying their access to the area. The State contended that this would leave the area in private hands with no adequate roads to serve the people and would impose unwise, if not impossible burdens, on the State and County in connection with providing schools, police protecti n, health services, and other necessary facilities.

After a year and a half of negotiations a solution was worked out. After the proposed solution was approved by the Governor, the Council of the State, and the Legislature of North Carolina, it was embodied in a settlement agreement between the State, the County, the National Park Service, and the T.V.A. Under that agreement the T.V.A. with the aid of a $100,000 contribution by the State was to acquire all the land in the isolated area, either by purchase or condemnation, so as to relieve the State from further responsibility for maintaining a highway to that section; Swain County was to be paid $400,000 by the Authority to help retire its outstanding road bonds; and the Authority was to transfer all the area lands to the National Park Service for inclusion within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park but reserving to the T.V.A. all rights required to carry out the T.V.A. program. The agreement, thus, satisfied the interests of the state, the county, the T.V.A., and the National Park Service. The cost to the United States was several hundred thousand dollars less than the cost of rebuilding the old road. And all the landowners in the area, except these six respondents who refused to sell, have received full compensation for their property.

The Courts below have held that T.V.A. had no power under the Act to condemn the tracts of these respondents as contemplated by the agreement. The District Court reached this conclusion by limiting the Authority's power so that it can condemn only those lands which are needed for the dam and reservoir proper. It reasoned that a common law rule of construction requires that statutory powers to condemn be given a restrictive interpretation. But Section 31 of the Act expressly provides that the Act shall be 'liberally construed to carry out the purposes of Congress to provide * * * for the national defense, improve navigation, control destructive floods, and promote interstate commerce and the general welfare.' In the face of this declaration, the District Court erred in following the asserted common law rule.

The Circuit Court of Appeals, without expressly relying on a compelling rule of construction that would give the restrictive scope to the T.V.A. Act given it by the district court, also interpreted the statute narrowly. It first analyzed the facts by segregating the total problem into distinct parts and, thus, came to the conclusion that T.V.A.'s purpose in condemning the land in question was only one to reduce its liablity arising from the destruction of the highway. The Court held that use of the lands for that purpose is a 'private' and not a 'public use' or, at best, a 'public use' not authorized by the statute. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

We think that it is the function of Congress to decide what type of taking is for a public use and that the agency authorized to do the taking may do so to the full extent of its statutory authority. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679, 16 S.Ct. 427, 429, 40 L.Ed. 576. It is true that this Court did say in City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 446, 50 S.Ct. 360, 362, 74 L.Ed. 950, that 'It is well established that, in considering the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to cases of expropriation of private property, the question what is a public use is a judicial one.' But the Court's judgment in that case denied the power to condemn 'excess' property on the ground that the state law had not authorized it. And in Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway, 208 U.S. 598, 607, 28 S.Ct. 331, 334, 335, 52 L.Ed. 637, 13 Ann.Cas. 1008, this Court, referring to the 'rule' later stated in the Vester case, said that 'No case is recalled where this court has condemned, as a violation of the 14th Amendment, a taking upheld by the state court as a taking for public uses in conformity with its laws.' And see Madisonville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 257, 260, 261, 25 S.Ct. 251, 258, 259, 260, 49 L.Ed. 462. But whatever may be the scope of the judicial power to determine what is a 'public use' in Fourteenth Amendment controversies, this Court has said that when Congress has spoken on this subject 'Its decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility.' Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66, 46 S.Ct. 39, 40, 70 L.Ed....