Harris v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRR. DIST., 312.
Decision Date | 12 December 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 312.,312. |
Citation | 29 F. Supp. 425 |
Parties | HARRIS v. CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER & IRRIGATION DIST. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
E. H. Evans and Halligan, McIntosh & Halligan, all of North Platte, Neb., G. J. McGinley, of Ogallala, Neb., and Robert E. Hamer, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff.
Beatty, Maupin, Murphy & Davis, of North Platte, Neb., and Paul E. Boslaugh, of Hastings, Neb., for the Power & Irrigation District.
The defendant, as its name indicates, is a public power and irrigation district, created and chartered under the laws of the State of Nebraska, and will be referred to hereafter as the "Power & Irrigation District". In keeping with the provisions of its organization, the Power & Irrigation District commenced the construction of a project on a large scale on the North Platte River. The construction work was started on March 9, 1936, and has progressed continuously until the present time with marked progress and with a total expenditure to date of $11,478,954.48.
In the course of its progress, it made application in due form to the Federal Power Commission for the purpose of obtaining a federal license under the provisions of The Federal Power Act, section 817, title 16, U.S.C.A. From the report and showing in support thereof submitted with the application, it appeared and the Commission so found that "the operation of the project, as proposed and planned, will result in the storage of flood waters, and the release of impounded waters at a gradual rate, thus reducing flood flows in the North Platte and Platte Rivers below the project works, and increase low water flows, the result of which will be to make the flows in the Platte River more nearly uniform" and "the operation of the project will result in a reduction of the discharge of sediment from the Platte River into the Missouri River, thus facilitating the maintenance of navigation channels in the Missouri River" and "the licensee may not operate the project in a manner that would adversely affect the interests of interstate commerce except in direct violation of the express terms of the license". From the foregoing showing and the supporting evidence, the Commission made and entered its Findings that "the construction and operation of the project, No. 1417, is in the judgment of the Commission, desirable and justified in the public interest for the purpose of improving or developing the North Platte and Platte Rivers for the use and benefit of interstate commerce on the navigable rivers to which the Platte River is tributory, namely, the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers".
In accordance with this showing and the finding of the Commission, a license in due form was issued to the Power & Irrigation Company, and ever since it has been and is now proceeding with its work in keeping with the terms of the license.
This present action is an action brought by the Power & Irrigation Company for the condemnation of certain lands lying within the bed of the reservoir, which is in process of construction, under the provisions of Section 814, title 16, U.S.C.A. of the Federal Power Act. Appraisers were heretofore appointed, as by law provided, and from their appraisal an appeal has been prosecuted to this Court. The landowner has filed his motion to dismiss, among other things, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court, and setting up some twenty-one grounds of objection, many of which objections, to our mind, might only be raised by the sovereign state from whom the Power & Irrigation Company derived its charter, and seemingly upon which the landowner is placing little if any reliance in view of the statement of counsel for the landowner made upon the opening of the oral argument and after the hearing, which I quote:
Then the following colloquy with the presiding judge took place:
From this statement of the objection, as defined by counsel, we are first confronted with the proposition of what jurisdiction this Court has to review the evidence presented to the Federal Power Commission on the application for license. If the license is valid for any purpose, it would seem that it must be valid for all purposes, while if the license is void for any purpose, then it would likewise seem to be void for all purposes. This is an action between the landowner and the Power & Irrigation District. The United States and the Federal Power Commission are not made parties. Counsel says they are not necessary parties. How may we determine whether the license is void without their presence? Before we might hold that we are without jurisdiction in this case to decide the condemnation suit, we must first set aside and annul the license granted by the Federal Power Commission, and to annul and set aside an Order of a Commission of the United States requires the presence of the United States — that is, the action must be brought against the United States. This principle is so well recognized and has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aladdin Petroleum Corp. v. State ex rel. Comm'rs of the Land Office
...v. Gateway Bridge Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 2 S.W.2d 1012; Continental Land Co. v. United States, 88 F.2d 104; Harris v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Dist., 29 F. Supp. 425. ¶41 Also, such judicial notice as a method extends to smaller streams. State of Arizona v. State of Californ......
-
Idaho Power Co. v. State, By and Through Dept. of Water Resources, U-1006-124
...of Indians v. Federal Power Comm'n, 420 U.S. 395, 408, 95 S.Ct. 1066, 1074, 43 L.Ed.2d 279 (1975); Harris v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Dist., 29 F.Supp. 425 (D.Neb.1938). Finally, we note that Section 10 of the Act specifically requires that "other beneficial public uses" b......
-
Aladdin Petroleum Corp. v. State ex rel. Com'rs of Land Office
... ... over the public lands in the condition in which they are at ... the state court. Economy Light & Power Co. v. United ... States, 256 U.S. 113, 123, 41 ... Harris v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation ... Dist., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 425 ... ...
-
Williams v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
...Elect. Lt. & Power Co., D.C., 42 F.2d 692; Grand River Dam Authority v. Going, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 316; Harris v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Dist., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 425. Petitioners take the position that even though the defendant has been granted the right to condemn for its p......