## Facts

- The United States and Canada entered a 1950 treaty allocating Niagara River waters for power generation and scenic preservation.
- The U.S. Senate consented to the treaty with a “reservation” stating that the United States reserved the right to provide by Act of Congress for redevelopment of the U.S. share of Niagara waters and that no redevelopment project would be undertaken until specifically authorized by Congress.
- The Power Authority of the State of New York, a state agency, applied to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for a Federal Power Act license to construct and operate a hydroelectric project using essentially all of the U.S. share of Niagara River water made available under the treaty.
- Canada treated the Senate reservation as addressing internal U.S. matters and not changing Canada’s treaty rights or obligations.
- The FPC dismissed the license application, concluding that the Senate reservation deprived it of authority to act unless Congress enacted a specific authorization statute.
- The Power Authority sought rehearing; the FPC denied rehearing, and the Power Authority petitioned for judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Senate’s treaty “reservation” became part of the treaty and thus “Law of the Land” under the Supremacy Clause.
2. If not, whether the reservation nevertheless restricted or withdrew the FPC’s licensing authority under the Federal Power Act absent specific congressional authorization.

## Decision

- The court set aside the FPC’s dismissal order and remanded.
- The court held the Senate reservation did not become part of the treaty and was not itself “Law of the Land.”
- The court held the reservation did not amend or limit the FPC’s statutory authority under the Federal Power Act to consider the license application.
- Judge Bastian dissented.

## Legal Principles

- Only treaty terms (including conditions or reservations that truly form part of the international agreement) have Supremacy Clause status as treaty law.
- A Senate condition that merely states domestic policy about internal U.S. allocation or use of treaty benefits, without altering international obligations, is not automatically part of the treaty.
- An agency’s statutory authority is not curtailed by a non-statutory domestic policy statement; Congress must act through legislation to change the agency’s governing statute.

## Conclusion

Because the Senate reservation functioned only as an internal policy statement and did not become a treaty term, it could not limit the FPC’s licensing authority under the Federal Power Act; the FPC therefore had to consider the Power Authority’s application under the statute.


Power Authority of N.Y. v. FPC, 247 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 1957)