The Source
Page 33
Chapter 9: Regulating Power
1U.S. Department of the Interior, Proceedings of the Endangered Species Committee (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, January 23, 1979).
2W. J. Novak, The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 2.
3N. Rosenberg, “America’s rise to leadership,” in America’s Wooden Age: Aspects of Its Early Technology, ed. B. Hindle (New York: Sleepy Hollow Restorations, 1975), 42–43, 56.
4D. E. Nye, Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 21–22.
5B. Hunter, “Wheat, war, and the American economy during the age of revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 62 (2005): 506, 508–9, 514–16.
6This suite of characteristics, roles, and responsibilities, evolving through time, was encapsulated by the term regulation. The entity is subjected to a constraint on its potential use of its facilities, and thus regulated, results in the key characteristics of what are considered a public utility. L. S. Hyman et al., The Water Business: Understanding the Water Supply and Wastewater Industry (Vienna, VA: Public Utilities Reports, 1998), 171–73.
7D. M. Gold, “Eminent domain and economic development: The Mill Acts and the origins of laissez-faire constitutionalism,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 21 (2007): 101–22, 104.
8P. M. Malone, Waterpower in Lowell: Engineering and Industry in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 25–42.
9Malone, Waterpower in Lowell, 39–41; T. Steinberg, Nature Incorporated: Industrialization and the Waters of New England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 86–88.
10Malone, Waterpower in Lowell, 48.
11M. J. Horowitz, “The transformation in the conception of property in American law, 1780–1860,” University of Chicago Law Review 40 (1978): 254–55.
12Hunter, “Wheat, war, and the American economy,” 506–7.
13Nye, Consuming Power, 45–47.
14Papermills and sawmills were widely seen as not having public purpose, and many legislatures and courts would not allow the owners of such mills to take advantage of mill act regulation or to throw a gristmill into a paper or saw mill operation; Gold, “Eminent domain and economic development,” 112.
15Maine case: Jordan v. Woodward 40 Me. 317, 1855. Vermont case: Williams v. School District No. 6, 33 Vt. 271, 1860. Broader rejection of mill acts are described in Gold, “Eminent domain and economic development,” 117.
Chapter 10: The Power of a River
1Many inventories of power capacity show steam increasing dramatically in the second half of the nineteenth century; but much of this steam power capacity was actually reserve capacity rather than power used. W. D. Devine, “From shafts to wires: Historical perspective on electrification,” Journal of Economic History 43 (1983): 351, 369–70.
2L. Philipson and H. L. Willis, Understanding Electric Utilities and De-Regulation, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, LA: CRC Press, 2006), 82–83.
3Philipson and Willis, Understanding Electric Utilities, 1–13.
4L. S. Hyman et al., The Water Business: Understanding the Water Supply and Wastewater Industry (Vienna, VA: Public Utilities Reports, 1998), 133–35.
5G. Tollefson, BPA and the Struggle for Power at Cost (Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, 1987), 78–83.
6W. Wells, “Public power in the Eisenhower administration,” Journal of Policy History, 20, 2008, 227–62.
7W. J. Hausman and J. L. Neufeld, “Falling water: The origins of direct federal participation in the U.S. electric utility industry, 1902–1933,” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 71 (1999): 49–74.
8S. M. Neuse, David Lilienthal: The Journey of an American Liberal (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), 112.
9D. E. Lilienthal, “The power of governmental agencies to compel testimony,” Harvard Law Review 36 (1926): 694–724; D. E. Lilienthal, “Needed: A new railroad labor law,” The New Republic, 1924: 169–71; D. Lilienthal, “The regulation of public utility holding companies,” Columbia Law Review, 1929, 408, 404–40; D. Lilienthal, “Recent developments in the law of public utility holding companies,” Columbia Law Review, February, 1931, 189–207.
10Description of Lilienthal’s time in Wisconsin: Neuse, David Lilienthal, 47–58. “Regulation with a vengeance” quote is from Neuse, David Lilienthal, 54.
11Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Message to Congress Suggesting the Tennessee Valley Authority,” April 10, 1933, FDR Presidential Library and Museum.
12Neuse, David Lilienthal, 77–82.
13Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 206 U.S. 118 (1939).
14Willkie’s frustration was based on the federal subsidies built into the TVA, which undermined the comparability of its power costs with those of the private sector. The financial basis for the TVA power has been a source of substantial economic analysis, and some analyses are particularly quantitative, systematic, and damning: W. U. Chandler, The Myth of the TVA: Conservation and Development in the Tennessee Valley, 1933–1983 (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984), 87–96. Other chapters in Chandler likewise deconstruct many fiscal assertions of the TVA’s other functions. Willkie quotes are from Neuse, David Lilienthal, 112. Negotiations are described in Neuse, David Lilienthal, 109–13.
15Use of the term yardstick by Lilienthal and FDR evolved over time in different contexts: Neuse, David Lilienthal, 84–86.
16The word authority (e.g., in TVA) denotes a generation and transmission utility owned by the government; the TVA is the largest such utility. A power administration (e.g., the Bonneville Power Administration), is a government agency that does not own generation facilities but sells or manages power when produced by other governmental resources, such as the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers. For instance, in the TVA region the Corps of Engineers operates nine hydropower plants, through which it produces 900 MW of power. That power is marketed through the Southeastern Power Administration. Likewise, the Western Area Power Administration markets the power produced by Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Dam.
17Energy Information Administration, “History of the U.S. electric power industry, 1882–1991,” in The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry, 2000 (Washington DC: EIA, 2000), 114.
18W. B. Wheeler and M. J. McDonald, TVA and the Tellico Dam: A Bureaucratic Crisis in Post-Industrial America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1986), 156–57.
19The TVA had from its inception been conceived as a unified plan to optimize the benefits for water, power, environment, and navigation; the Tellico Dam was a part of this plan for “unified development” of the watershed that was the signature of the TVA to water managers worldwide. Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Report to the Congress on the Unified Development of the Tennessee River System (Knoxville: Tennessee Valley Authority, March 1936).
20The TVA and the Tellico Dam have received considerable historical and legal analysis. For analysis of how the situation fit into the bureaucracy of the TVA as it was trying to redefine its mission, see Wheeler and McDonald, TVA and the Tellico Dam. For a more direct, first-person analysis from the attorney who led the case against TVA, with particular emphasis on the impact to farmers of the valley, see Z. J. B. Plater, The Snail Darter and the Dam: How Pork-Barrel Politics Endangered a Little Fish and Killed a River (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013).
21U.S. Department of the Interior, Proceedings of the Endangered Species Committee (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, January 23, 1979), 26.
22Congressional Research Service, A Legislative History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), 1292.
Chapter 11: Channelization
1S. A. Schumm and H. R. Khan, “Experimental study of channel patterns,” Geological Society of Ame
rica Bulletin 83 (1972): 1755–70.
2This is a well-studied phenomenon; for Thompson’s own work on pools and riffles, see D. M. Thompson and K. S. Hoffman, “Equilibrium pool dimensions and sediment-sorting patterns in coarse-grained New England channels,” Geomorphology 38 (2001): 301–16.
3J. S. Van Cleef, “How to restore our trout streams,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 14 (1885): 50–55.
4E. Van Put, The Beaverkill: The History of a River and Its People (New York: Lyons & Burford, 1996), 30–35.
5E. H. Shor, R. H. Rosenblatt, and J. D. Isaacs, Carl Leavitt Hubbs: 1894–1979: A Biographical Memoir, Vol. 56 (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1987), 241–19.
6C. Hubbs, C. M. Tarzwell, and J. R. Greely, Methods for the Improvement of Michigan Trout Streams (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1932); H. Clepper, Origins of American Conservation (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1966), 64–68.
7These scientists employed techniques that remain the standard for evaluating the efficacy of restoration actions—the Before, After, Control, Intervention study design. D. S. Shetter, O. H. Clark, and A. S. Hazzard, “The effects of deflectors in a section of a Michigan trout stream,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 76 (1949): 248–78. A good example of this intervention study design applied to restoration is the work and career of Clarence Tarzwell, who went from the University of Michigan program to the U.S. Forest Service in Albuquerque and then to the Tennessee Valley Authority, yet applied the training he received at the Michigan School throughout: C. M. Tarzwell, “Experimental evidence on the value of trout stream improvement in Michigan,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 66 (1937): 177–87. Quote is from T. K. Chamberlain and W. W. Huber, “Ten years of trout stream management on the Pisgah,” Progressive Fish Culturalist 9 (1947): 185–91.
8D. M. Thompson, “Did the pre-1980 use of in-stream structures improve streams? A reanalysis of historical data,” Ecological Applications 16 (2006): 784–96.
9D. M. Thompson, The Quest for the Golden Trout: Environmental Loss and America’s Iconic Fish (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2013), 186–97.
10For New York, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Forests for Public Use (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940). For California, see R. Ehlers, “An evaluation of stream improvement devices constructed eighteen years ago,” California Fish and Game 42 (1956): 203–17. For Wyoming, see J. W. Mueller, “Wyoming stream improvement,” Wyoming Wild Life 18 (1954): 30–32. Thompson provides an excellent review of the early years of in-stream restoration people and projects. D. M. Thompson, “The history of the use and effectiveness of instream structures in the United States,” in Humans as Geologic Agents, ed. J. Ehlen, W. C. Haneberg, and R. A. Larson (Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, 2005).
11Quote is from Chamberlain and Huber, “Ten years of trout stream management on the Pisgah,” 185. In fact, the public fishing easements purchased along selected trout streams of the Catskills were intended primarily to provide the Conservation Department with another opportunity to do stream improvement work. Van Put, The Beaverkill, 256–57.
12J. H. Thorp, M. C. Thoms, and M. D. Delong, “The riverine ecosystem synthesis: Biocomplexity in river networks across space and time,” River Research and Applications 22 (2006): 123–47.
13A. Brookes, Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1988), 10, 18–19. National Research Council, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1992), 194.
14J. L. Funk and C. E. Ruhr, “Stream channelization in the Midwest,” in Stream Channelization: A Symposium, ed. E. Schneberger and J. L. Funk (Omaha, NE: North Central Division of the American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 2, 1971), 10.
15C. J. Barstow, “Impact of channelization on wetland habitat in the Obion–Forked Deer Basin, Tennessee,” in Schneberger and Funk (ed.), Stream Channelization: A Symposium, 23; D. R. Hansen, “Stream channelization effects on fishes and bottom fauna in the Little Sioux River, Iowa,” in Schneberger and Funk (ed.), Stream Channelization: A Symposium, 41.
16Committee on Government Operations Report, Stream Channelization: What Federally Financed Draglines and Bulldozers do to Our Nation’s Streams, Fifth Report by the Committee on Government Operations, House Report No. 93-530 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), 7.
17Brookes, Channelized Rivers, 20.
18Federal Highways Administration, Restoration of Fish Habitat in Relocated Streams: Federal Highways Administration Report No. FHWA-IP-79-3 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979).
19C. H. Pennington et al., Biological and Physical Effects of Missouri River Spur Dike Notching: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Report ADA199779 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988).
20M. J. Migel, The Stream Conservation Handbook (New York: Crown Publishers, 1974), 121–22.
21M. Ondaatje, The English Patient (London: Bloomsbury, 1992), 261–62.
22L. B. Leopold, J. P. Miller, and G. M. Wolman, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology (San Francisco: Freeman, 1964).
Chapter 12: The Restoration Economy
1E. S. Bernhardt, et al., “A nationwide synthesis of stream restoration,” Science 308 (2005): 636–37.
2J. McPhee, Encounters with the Archdruid (New York: Ballantine Books, 1971), 158–59.
3E. H. Stanley and M. W. Doyle, “Trading off: The ecological effects of dam removal,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (2003): 15–22.
4D. Yergin and J. Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (New York: Free Press, 1998), 123–31.
5J. H. Dales, Pollution, Property and Prices: An Essay in Policy-making and Economics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968).
6T. E. Dahl, Wetland Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s (Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990); P. Hough and M. Robertson, “Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Where it comes from, what it means,” Wetlands Ecology and Management 17 (2009): 15–33.
7M. W. Doyle and F. D. Shields, “Compensatory mitigation for streams under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing science and redirecting policy,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48 (2012): 494–509.
8For road-building, land development, and stream and wetland credit summaries, see T. K. BenDor, J. A. Riggsbee, and M. W. Doyle, “Risk and markets for ecosystem services,” Environmental Science and Technology 45 (2012): 10322–30.
9J. Ott, “ ‘Ruining’ the rivers of the Snake Country: The Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fur Desert Policy,” Oregon Historical Quarterly 104 (2003): 166–95; D. Muller-Schwarze, The Beaver: Its Life and Impact, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), 160–64.
INDEX
Page numbers listed correspond to the print edition of this book. You can use your device’s search function to locate particular terms in the text.
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations.
Abbot, Henry, 73, 74
Akron, Ohio, 196
Alabama, 115, 206–8, 210–14, 235–36, 240, 241, 242, 243
Alabama Power and Light, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242, 243
Alabama River, 206
Albany, N.Y., 23, 30, 32, 34, 57
alfalfa market, 145–46
Allegheny Portage route, 30
Allegheny River, 11, 17
American Revolution, 34–35, 47, 160
American River, 11, 121
Appalachian Mountains, 17–18, 19, 28, 29–30, 31, 34
appropriation doctrine, 123–24, 141
Arizona, 138
alfalfa market in, 145–46
Central Arizona Project of, 135–36, 142–43, 144, 151
interstate conflict over water, 125, 125–26, 130–31, 134–35
water market in, 142
Arkansas River, 81
Army, U.S., 35–38, 106–7
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S., see Corps of Engineers
Articles of Confederation, 21, 22–23, 108–9
Atchafalaya River, 69, 76
auction rate securities, 211, 212
Babbitt, Bruce, 289
Baker, Howard, 251, 252–53
Balsam Lake Club, 263
Baltimore, Md., 38, 227, 279–80
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 161
Baraboo River, 288
Barge Canal, 23, 24–26, 34
see also Erie Canal
barges, 44, 56
barge tows, 44–46, 50, 51, 315n
Beaverkill Club, 263
Beaverkill River, 258, 260, 262, 267, 275
beavers, 300–301, 303
Big Bend Dam, 88
Big Swan Levee District, 67–68
Bill of Rights, 313n
Bingham, George, 51
Bishop’s Lodge, 131–32
Blackledge River, 264–65, 268
Blanco, Kathleen, 107, 108
bonds, municipal, 30, 162–64, 165, 181–82, 193, 199, 207–14
Borgne, Lake, 75, 98
Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928), 134, 135, 136, 323n
Brandeis, Louis, 109, 239
Brandywine River, 228
Briggs House, 170
Brunnhuber, Frederick, 32
Brunnhuber, Karl, 32
Buffalo, N.Y., 31, 32, 203
Buffalo River, 200
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S., 136, 137, 138–39, 236, 245, 266, 330n
Bush, George H. W., 292
Bush, George W., 54, 108
Bush Jr. administration, 93, 107, 319n
bypasses, flood, 69, 73–74, 81–82
Cahaba River, 206–7, 210
Cahaba River Society, 207