a public policy that private interests must endure some inconvenience for the general populace to receive the benefits of utilities. Other jurisdictions have also recognized that utilities and businesses of a public nature and having legislative sanction should not be declared nuisances. See cases cited in E.E. Woods, Annotation, Electric Generating Plant or Transformer, 4 A.L.R.3d 902, 910 (1965)(citing cases holding public utility under legislative authority not liable for nuisance, absent negligence in the manner of operation). See, e.g., State of Mo. Ex. Rel. Ashcroft v. Dept. of the Army, 672 F.2d 1297, 1304 (8thCir.l982)(apply-ing Missouri law operation of dam not public nuisance because it was authorized by law); Georgia R.R. Banking Co. v. Maddox, 116 Ga. 64, 42 S.E. 315 (1902)(<HOLDING>). Accord Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B
holding that a specific pretext instruction is not necessary holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission holding ordinary and necessary concomitants to operating railroad terminal authorized by specific grant of legislative franchise not nuisance holding that the construction of a hydroelectric generating facility could not constitute a nuisance because it was being constructed under legislative authority recognizing that federal courts are not authorized to add specific language that congress did not include in a carefully considered statute