285 



All of this is additionally borne out by the legislative 

 history" and United States v. Rands, 1967, 389 U.S. 

 121, 127, 88 S.Ct. 265, , 19 L.Ed.2d 329, 335: 



"Finally, respondents urge that the Govern- 

 ment's position subverts the policy of the Sub- 

 merged Lands Act, which confirmed and vcst^ 

 ed in the States title to the lands beneath navi- 

 gable waters within their boundaries and to na- 

 tural resources within such lands and waters, 

 together with the right and power to manage, 

 develop, and use such lands and natural re- 

 sources. However, relian*ce on that Act is mis- 

 placed, for it expressly recognized that the 

 United States retained all its navigational 

 servitude and rights in and powers of regula- 

 tion and control of said lands and navigable 

 waters for the constitutional purposes of com- 

 mer-ce, navigation, national defense, and in- 

 ternational affairs, all of which shall be para- 

 mount to, but shall not be deemed to include. 



the impliedly retained powers in § 1311(d). But to hold that it 

 is an explicit reservation of all commerce powers gives the 

 section meaning. The section may bo unneeded and overly 

 cautious in that it reserves a constitutional power that has 

 never been relinquished, but it should not be read in such a 

 way as to render it otherwise useless. 



"This title does not affect any of the Federal consti- 

 tutional powers of regulation and control over these 

 areas within State boundaries. Such powers, as those 

 over navigation, commerce, national defense, interna- 

 tional affairs, flood control, and power production 

 where the United States owns or acquires the water 

 power." 

 H. R. Rep. No. 215, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (March 27, 1953), 1953 

 U.S.C.C. & A.N. 1385, 1389. 



