Grand River Dam Authority v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
| Decision Date | 08 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 5549.,5549. |
| Citation | 246 F.2d 453 |
| Parties | GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, a public corporation and an agency of the State of Oklahoma, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Q. B. Boydstun, Veneta, Okl., on the brief for petitioner.
Willard W. Gatchell, General Counsel, John C. Mason, Deputy General Counsel, and William L. Ellis and Joseph B. Hobbs, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for respondent.
Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
The question presented for determination is whether the Federal Power Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, is authorized under section 10(f) of the Federal Power Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 843, 16 U.S.C.A. § 803(f), to assess reasonable and equitable charges against a power project owned by the United States for benefits received from a headwater project owned by a public agency of a state.
Grand River Dam Authority, hereinafter referred to as Authority, is a public corporation and agency of the State of Oklahoma, organized and existing under and by virtue of Article IV, Chapter 70, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1935, as amended and supplemented, Chapter 8, Title 82 Oklahoma Statutes 1951. By such act, Authority was empowered to control, store, preserve, sell, and distribute waters of the Grand River and its tributaries in Oklahoma, and in connection therewith to generate and sell hydroelectric power. Pursuant to its legislative grant of power, Authority prepared a comprehensive plan which included construction of the Pensacola, the Markham Ferry, and the Fort Gibson Dams on the river for the production of electric energy. The Pensacola site was 77 miles, the Markham Ferry site 47 miles, and the Fort Gibson site 8 miles from the confluence of the Grand River with the Arkansas. The three dams and related works were to be constructed, operated, and maintained as a unified project. One purpose of the unified plan was to make the storage and headwater facilities at the Pensacola Dam available for beneficial use in connection with the Markham Ferry and the Fort Gibson Dams. In 1939, the Commission issued to Authority a license authorizing the construction of the Pensacola Dam, and the dam and reservoir were constructed in accordance with the license. By the Flood Control Act of 1941, 55 Stat. 638, Congress authorized the construction of the Pensacola, the Markham Ferry, and the Fort Gibson Dams under the direction of the Secretary of War, adapted to use in the development of hydroelectric power. Exercising such grant of authority, the dam at Fort Gibson was constructed for flood control and the development and generation of hydroelectric power; and in the operation of such project, benefits were and are derived from the headwater improvements and storage facilities of Authority at the Pensacola location. Authority petitioned the Commission to assess reasonable and equitable charges against the Fort Gibson project for the benefits received from the upstream project at the Pensacola site. Entertaining the view that it did not have authority under the Federal Power Act to make such an assessment against a project owned by the United States, the Commission denied the request; and Authority brought the proceeding here on review.
The Federal Power Act became law in 1920, 41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S. C.A. § 791a et seq. Section 10 thereof specified the conditions upon which licenses should be issued for the construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation, and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across and along the navigable waters of the United States. Subsection (f) provided that whenever any licensee thereunder was directly benefited by the construction work of another licensee, permittee, or of the United States of a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement, the Commission should require as a condition of the license that the licensee so benefited should reimburse the owner of such reservoir or other improvement for such part of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation thereon as the Commission should deem equitable; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.
...2d 1079 (1959); United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 220 U.S. 37, 31 S.Ct. 362, 55 L.Ed. 361 (1911); Grand River Dam Authority v. F. P. C., 246 F.2d 453 (10th Cir., 1957). 5 Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Brookside Theatre Corp., 8 Cir., 194 F. 2d 846, cert. den. 343 U.S. 942, 72......
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. F.E.R.C.
...10(f) so that both licensees and pre-1920 federal permittees could be assessed headwater benefits, Grand River Dam Authority v. Federal Power Commission, 246 F.2d 453, 455 (10th Cir.1957), and added a second part to the Act dealing with the regulation of certain electric utility companies. ......
-
Webster Cty. Coal v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...accord, United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 272-73, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); Grand River Dam Auth. v. Federal Power Comm'n., 246 F.2d 453, 455 (10th Cir. 1957). The TVA also states that just because it has the ability to sue for treble damages under the antitrust l......
-
State v. Kuebel
...876; United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 1911, 220 U.S. 37, 31 S.Ct. 362, 55 L.Ed. 361; Grand River Dam Authority v. Federal Power Com'n, 1957, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 453, 455. There are many instances in our criminal code where scienter or knowledge is made an element of the crime, an......