Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Commission
Headline: Court limits federal licensing to hydroelectric projects, rules thermal-electric power plants that withdraw river water for cooling are not covered by Federal Power Commission licenses, reducing federal control over large steam plants’ water use.
Holding: The Court held that the Federal Power Commission does not have authority under Part I of the Federal Power Act to require licenses for thermal-electric power plants that withdraw navigable water for cooling, and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Prevents use of the Federal Power Act’s licensing to regulate steam power plants’ river water withdrawals.
- Leaves tribes and environmental groups unable to force Part I licenses for cooling-water impacts.
- Shifts responsibility to Congress or other agencies to address large-scale cooling water loss.
Summary
Background
In 1971 two Indian tribes, five individual Indians, the Sierra Club, and the Committee to Save Black Mesa asked the Federal Power Commission to require ten utility companies to obtain licenses for six new fossil-fueled power plants on the Colorado River and its tributaries. The plants, located in the Four Corners region and nearby sites, would withdraw very large amounts of river water for cooling. The Commission dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals agreed the plants were not the kind of hydroelectric "project works" specifically covered by the law but remanded to consider whether the "surplus water" clause might reach them.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether Part I of the Federal Power Act (the old federal licensing law for water projects) requires licenses for steam-driven plants that take cooling water from navigable streams. Looking at the statute’s language, detailed legislative history, the Commission’s long-standing interpretation, and earlier cases, the Court concluded Congress intended Part I to regulate hydroelectric development, not thermal steam plants. The Court also found the surplus-water language historically referred to water used for hydroelectric power. Because Congress had not expanded the Commission’s licensing role, the Court held the Commission lacks authority to license these thermal-electric plants and rejected the surplus-water basis for jurisdiction.
Real world impact
The decision means Part I licensing cannot be used to control these steam plants’ large cooling-water withdrawals. Tribes, environmental groups, and communities cannot force licenses under that law; extending federal licensing to thermal plants will require action by Congress or other agencies. The ruling is a statutory interpretation, leaving policy concerns about water loss to lawmakers.
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?