United States v. City & County of San Francisco
Headline: Enforces Hetch-Hetchy grant ban on private resale, blocks San Francisco from using a private utility to sell its public power and requires municipal control of distribution.
Holding: The Court holds that Congress validly conditioned the Hetch-Hetchy land grant to require San Francisco to sell and distribute power itself, finds the City violated that ban by using a private utility, and affirms a court order stopping the practice.
- Stops the City from using a private utility to sell Hetch-Hetchy power.
- Requires municipal control of sale and distribution of the grant’s power.
- Allows the federal government to enforce grant conditions through court orders.
Summary
Background
Congress passed the Raker Act in 1913, granting San Francisco lands and rights in Yosemite and Stanislaus National Forest to supply water and generate electric power for public use. The Act’s Section 6 said the city must not give or sell the right to sell that water or power to private corporations or individuals. The United States sued after the city contracted with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company to take, sell, and distribute Hetch-Hetchy power starting in 1925; a lower court found a violation and ordered relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court asked whether Section 6 really barred transfer of the right to sell and distribute Hetch-Hetchy power to a private utility. Relying on the Act’s text, congressional debate, and the way the city actually handled the power (delivery to the company’s substation, company control of distribution, and company billing), the Court concluded Congress meant to require municipal sale and distribution so the public power would compete with private companies. The Court held Congress may impose conditions on disposal of public lands and that the city breached Section 6 by allowing the private company to control sale and distribution. Administrative tolerance before enforcement did not change the law, and the Government was entitled to a court order enforcing the grant conditions.
Real world impact
San Francisco must stop using the private utility to sell Hetch-Hetchy power or forfeit the granted rights. The decision enforces congressional limits on how power from federal lands can be used and protects the intended public purpose of the grant.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice, McReynolds, would have affirmed the Court of Appeals and allowed the company’s role to stand.
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?