EP 1165-2-1
30 Jul 99
a Court of original jurisdiction. Conflicting decisions among the
circuits are resolved by appeal to the Supreme Court.
b. Relation to Congressional Authority. Congressionally
approved Corps projects must have been authorized in exercise of one
of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Such
authorizations are generally based on the congressional powers to
regulate interstate and foreign commerce, or to tax and spend for the
general welfare. Major Supreme Court decisions have established that
those general powers include not only the power to promote navigation,
but also to provide for flood damage reduction, hydropower production,
watershed development, and similar activities of broad water resources
management. Furthermore, the powers can be applied by Congress not
only to the main portions of a river or other body of water, but to
it's watershed and non-navigable portions as well. Also involved is
the resolution of interstate water problems. States often assert
conflicting claims to the waters made available by a major interbasin
project. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may adopt a
comprehensive statutory plan for apportionment of the waters involved
when authorizing a project. Similarly, the court itself may
adjudicate such interstate disputes. Interstate cooperation is
approved by Congress in the form of an interstate compact. (Paragraph
4-3)
c. Interpretation of Legislative Policy. Policies in new or
controversial fields often require judicial interpretation. In recent
years judicial effect on policy has been most pronounced in matters of
administrative procedures, particularly those involving public
participation in decision-making and related environmental questions.
The provisions of the NEPA have been applied by the courts virtually
to the whole scope of the planning, construction, and operation of
water resources projects, resulting in numerous changes in agencies'
basic procedures. Due to this increased judicial scrutiny which
occurred in the early 197Os, individuals and groups affected by
present or proposed projects will have a continued opportunity to use
the courts to test the propriety and application of administrative
procedures.
d. Legislation and Corps Regulatory Activity. Corps regulatory
authorities have been interpreted by the courts to require detailed
attention to systematic decision-making and protection of the
interests of the public at large as well as the particular interests
of the persons or entities subjected to Federal regulation. The
policies governing the administrative procedures in Corps regulatory
programs have accordingly become increasingly detailed.
2-9
Previous Page
