Namekagon Hydro Co. v. Federal Power Com'n
| Decision Date | 29 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 11029.,11029. |
| Citation | 216 F.2d 509 |
| Parties | NAMEKAGON HYDRO COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Glen H. Bell, Madison, Wis., E. E. Omernik, Spooner, Wis., Robert M. Rieser, Charles P. Seibold, Madison, Wis., for petitioner.
John C. Mason, Atty., Willard W. Gatchell, Gen. Counsel, Louis C. Kaplan, Joseph E. Hayden, Attys., Federal Power Commission, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Roy G. Tulane, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Wisconsin, Vernon W. Thomson, Atty. Gen. of Wisconsin, for intervenors.
A. D. Sutherland, Fond Du Lac, Wis., for Wisconsin Division of Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., amicus curiae.
Fischer, Brunner & Strossenreuther, Shawano, Wis., amicus curiae.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
This is a proceeding under Sec. 313(b) of the Federal Power Act,1 to review an order of the Federal Power Commission which denied the application of Namekagon Hydro Company for a license under the Federal Power Act to construct a dam and hydroelectric project on the Namekagon River in Washburn County, Wisconsin. The Commission found that "the proposed project is not best adapted for beneficial public uses of the Namekagon River, including the use of the stream for recreational purposes".
Sec. 10(a) of the Act2 provides: "All licenses issued under this Part shall be on the following conditions: (a) That the project adopted, * * * shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes; * * *."
The Namekagon River is about 85 miles in length, arises in Namekagon Lake in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, and flows through portions of Bayfield, Sawyer, Washburn and Burnett Counties, and joins the St. Croix River near Riverside, Wisconsin, about 6 miles east of the Wisconsin-Minnesota boundary.
It is proposed to locate the hydroelectric project on the Namekagon River in Washburn County at a point about 12 miles upstream from where the Namekagon empties into the St. Croix River. The plan calls for a dam and power house operating under a head of 25 feet. A narrow reservoir would be created extending about 6 ½ miles upstream from the dam. The capacity of the proposed project would be 1500 kilowatts.
Public hearings were held on the application for a license. The town of Chicog in Washburn County, the city of Spooner, officials of Washburn County and the Trego Rod and Gun Club supported the application. The Attorney General on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wisconsin division of the Izaak Walton League of America and others opposed the application. The examiner made findings and recommended that the license be issued but the Commission, after considering the briefs filed, and after hearing oral arguments, issued its order denying the license for the Namekagon hydroelectric project.
As is often the case when an application is made for a license to build a power dam, a conflict of interests is encountered. In the instant case the proposed project has engineering feasibility, the applicant is able to finance its construction, and the areas involved could make use of the power generated. Those located in the immediate area where the dam is proposed to be built are largely favorable to its construction.
But Congress was aware that conflicting interests would, in all likelihood, be encountered when it formulated the statutory guides to be found in Section 10(a) of the Act. Recreational values of a project are one of the benefits to be considered by the Commission. When Congress inserted the phrase "including recreational purposes", in the 1935 amendment to the Act, it was stated in Senate Rep. No. 621, 74th Congress, 1st Sess., pages 44-45
Sec. 313(b) of the Federal Power Act provides that the findings of the Commission, as to the facts, shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, before the Commission may issue a license under Sec. 4(e) of the Act it must find under Sec. 10(a) of the Act that the proposed project in the judgment of the Commission, will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan, etc. Obviously, Congress left it to the judgment of the Commission as to whether a proposed project meets the best plan test of Sec. 10(a). Our inquiry is, does the judgment of the Commission as exercised have a rational basis in the evidence? Montana Power Company v. Federal Power Commission, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 371. In order to determine whether the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence we shall examine the record and consider same as a whole. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.
For many years past the tourist business has been an important business activity in the State of Wisconsin. In the summer season many thousands of visitors come annually from various states to the northern part of Wisconsin to spend their vacations and for recreation. The State of Wisconsin spends about $450,000.00 a year in advertising and publicizing this resort and recreational area of the state. In those advertisements emphasis is laid on Wisconsin's eight thousand lakes and its miles of fishing streams. Many tourists are attracted by the facilities for fishing and boating.
At the time Wisconsin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Village of Lake Delton
...269 Wis. 262, 69 N.W.2d 217 (1955); State ex rel. Carter v. Harper, 182 Wis. 148, 196 N.W. 451 (1923); Namekagon Hydro Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 216 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1954).11 Justice Winslow observed: "The right of the state to better its navigable waterways is supreme. If there be......
-
Public Service Commission of State of N. Y. v. Federal Power Commission
...217, 224, 239 F.2d 37, 44 (1966); American Airlines v. CAB, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 327, 231 F.2d 483, 486 (1956); Namekagon Hydro Co. v. FPC, 216 F.2d 509, 512 (7th Cir.1954).190 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. (Opinion No. 378), supra note 31.191 29 F.P.C. at 256.192 Texas Eastern Transmiss......
-
Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
...718 (1962); Citizens Utilities Co., 21 F.P.C. 455 (1959); Namekagon Hydro Co., 12 F.P.C. 203 (1953), aff'd sub nom., Namekagon Hydro Co. v. FPC, 216 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1954). See generally Tarlock, Tippy & Francis, supra note 13, at 515-20; Note, Of Birds, Bees, and the FPC, 77 Yale L.J. 11......
-
Hudson River Fishermen's Ass'n v. Federal Power Com'n
...hearings. The Commission has a statutory duty to protect recreational and commercial uses of waterways, Namekagon Hydro Company v. Federal Power Commission, 216 F.2d 509 (7 Cir. 1954), and the Supreme Court has emphasized that the FPC must develop an adequate record concerning spawning acti......
-
CHAPTER 2 LEGAL OVERVIEW—CURRENT PROBLEMS IN WATER ACQUISITION
...[17] 103 Ut. 494, 136 P.2d. 957 (1943) [18] 1 Cal. 2d 476, 35 P.2d 1027 (1934) [19] 45 Cal.Reptr. 589, 235 Cal. App. 2d 863 (1965) [20] 216 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1954). [21] 354 F.2d 608 (1966), cert. den. 384 U.S. 941. [22] General Laws of Oregon, 1929, ch. 279. [23] Ore. Rev. Statutes ch. 53......