Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
1960 U.S. LEXIS 1886, 362 U.S. 99, 4 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The special protections for 'reservations' under the Federal Power Act apply only to lands in which the United States has a proprietary interest, not to lands owned in fee simple by an Indian tribe. Such fee-simple lands may be taken by a federal licensee for a licensed project through the general eminent domain power granted in the Act.
Facts:
- In 1804, the Tuscarora Indian Nation purchased 4,329 acres of land in New York in fee simple, using proceeds from the sale of their former lands in North Carolina.
- These lands are located adjacent to the Niagara River, a prime location for hydroelectric power generation.
- A 1950 treaty between the United States and Canada permitted increased diversion of water from the Niagara River for power projects.
- In 1956, a rock slide destroyed a major hydroelectric plant in the area, creating a critical power shortage.
- In response, Congress passed Public Law 85-159 in 1957, directing the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to issue a license to the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) for a new, large-scale power project.
- PASNY's plans for the project included a 60,000 acre-feet storage reservoir necessary for the project's efficiency.
- The proposed reservoir would inundate 1,383 acres of the Tuscarora Indian Nation's fee-simple lands.
- The Tuscarora Indian Nation objected to the condemnation and taking of its lands for the reservoir.
Procedural Posture:
- The Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) applied to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for a license to construct a hydroelectric power project on the Niagara River.
- The Tuscarora Indian Nation intervened in the FPC proceedings, objecting to the proposed taking of its land for a reservoir.
- The FPC issued the license, concluding the Tuscarora lands were not part of a 'reservation' as defined by the Federal Power Act, thus obviating the need for a special finding under § 4(e).
- The Tuscarora Indian Nation filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals held that the lands constituted a 'reservation' and remanded the case to the FPC to determine whether it could make the finding required by § 4(e).
- On remand, the FPC found that taking the land 'would interfere and would be inconsistent with the purpose for which the reservation was created' and that it could not make the required finding.
- The Court of Appeals then entered a final judgment modifying the FPC's order to specifically exclude the power to condemn the Tuscarora lands.
- The Federal Power Commission and PASNY successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Power Act authorize a licensee of the Federal Power Commission to take lands owned in fee simple by the Tuscarora Indian Nation for a hydroelectric project reservoir?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Whittaker
Yes. The Federal Power Act authorizes the taking of lands owned in fee simple by the Tuscarora Indian Nation because such lands do not constitute a 'reservation' under the Act's specific definition, and they are subject to the Act's general eminent domain power. The Act's definition of 'reservations' in § 3(2) includes 'tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations' but qualifies this and other categories as 'lands and interests in lands owned by the United States.' Because the Tuscarora Nation owns its land in fee simple, the United States does not have the requisite proprietary interest for the land to be considered a 'reservation.' Consequently, the special protection in § 4(e) of the Act, which requires the FPC to find that a project 'will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created,' does not apply. Furthermore, § 21 of the Act grants licensees a general power of eminent domain to acquire 'the lands or property of others' necessary for a project. It is well-settled that general Acts of Congress apply to Indians unless an intent to exclude them is clearly expressed, and § 21 contains no such exclusion. The Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177), which restricts the conveyance of Indian lands, does not apply to condemnations by the United States or its licensees exercising delegated federal power.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The Federal Power Act does not authorize this taking; rather, it prohibits it, and the taking violates the United States' long-standing policy of preserving Indian reservations and breaches treaty obligations. The majority's interpretation of 'reservation' in § 3(2) is an artificial construction that ignores the plain meaning and legislative history; 'tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations' is a distinct category not limited by the subsequent phrase 'owned by the United States.' Even if it were, the government's trust responsibility and control over the alienation of the land constitutes a sufficient 'interest' to trigger the Act's protections. The FPC itself found that the taking would interfere with the purpose of the reservation, which should have ended the inquiry. The general condemnation power of § 21 should not be interpreted to override the specific protections for Indian lands and the historical policy of not taking such lands without explicit congressional consent. This decision breaks the faith of the United States, which has a solemn duty, reflected in treaties with the Six Nations (including the Tuscaroras), to protect them in the 'free use and enjoyment' of their lands.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of federal statutory protections for Indian lands by drawing a sharp distinction based on the nature of the land title. By holding that fee-simple tribal lands are not 'reservations' under the Federal Power Act, the Court limited the applicability of specific protective clauses like § 4(e). The ruling affirmed the principle that general federal statutes, including those granting eminent domain power, apply to Indian tribes unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise, thus placing a greater burden on tribes to secure specific statutory exemptions. This case weakened the canon of construction that ambiguities in statutes affecting Indians should be resolved in their favor and has had lasting implications for tribal sovereignty and land rights in the face of federal development projects.
Unlock the full brief for Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation