Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co.
Headline: Court upholds federal permits allowing an electric company to keep its transmission line across former reservation lands, blocking homesteaders from cancelling the utility’s established right-of-way.
Holding: The Court held that federal permits and the Secretary’s 1912 regulation kept the power company’s right of way valid, so patents to homesteaders did not cancel the company’s right to use the land.
- Protects utility rights-of-way even when later land deeds omit reservations.
- Prevents homesteaders from blocking long-standing power lines without Secretary revocation.
- Clarifies that federal land deeds must follow existing permits and regulations.
Summary
Background
An electric company built and has operated a high-tension power line across unsurveyed lands in the Coeur d’Alene Reservation since 1902–1903. The Interior Department issued the company permits to use a right of way to build and maintain the line. After the reservation was opened for settlement in 1910, several people made homestead entries and later received federal land deeds for tracts crossed by the line. Those new landowners sought to stop the company from using the land under the power line.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the later federal land deeds cancelled the company’s earlier permits. The Court looked to the 1901 law that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights of way and to his 1912 regulation saying that final disposal of land does not automatically revoke such permits. The Court accepted the Secretary’s long-standing interpretation that permits remain in effect until he expressly revokes them. Because the right of way was lawfully permitted and the regulation in force when deeds issued protected those permits, the deeds without a reservation did not defeat the company’s right to use the land.
Real world impact
The decision keeps electric transmission and similar long-lasting utility works in place when they were lawfully permitted before land was later deeded to settlers. It means land buyers cannot automatically cancel prior federal permits by securing deeds; the Secretary must revoke a permit before use ends. This affects utilities, settlers, and how federal land deeds are treated under existing permits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?