THE JOINT CONSERVATION CONGRESS 



vent their use to the detriment of the navi- 

 gability of the rivers they supply, and can 

 even resume control of waters appropriated 

 by a State for domestic purposes, to the 

 destruction of the navigability of a stream. 



If this power and jurisdiction be recog- 

 nized, may it not be insisted, that it is within 

 the powers of Congress to enact a uniform 

 code, not only to safeguard the waters tribu- 

 tary to the navigable waterways against such 

 diversion or obstruction as may destroy navi- 

 gation, but also to provide for the distribu- 

 tion of such waters for beneficial use in 

 the reclamation of the arid and semi-arid 

 lands of the country? For surely the time 

 will come, if it is not already at hand, when 

 the appropriation and diversion of the waters 

 of many of the non-navigable waters of the 

 country for purposes of irrigation and gen- 

 eration of power for industrial and other 

 purposes, will seriously impair if not destroy 

 the navigability of streams emptying into 

 the Mississippi, the Columbia and other 

 great rivers of the country. 



My purpose in this discussion is to call 

 attention to the powers which Congress un- 

 questionably has and to others, which in my 

 opinion, it has, as an incident to those ex- 

 pressly granted. If the position assumed is 

 correct. Congress has jurisdiction over 

 many of the most valuable resources 

 of the country, and why may not 

 a law be passed, creating an inter- 

 state Conservation Commission, author- 

 izing it to work in connection with the de- 

 partments of government now having juris- 

 diction over the public lands, the forests, 

 navigation, reclamation and kindred subjects ; 

 making appropriations for the purchase oi 

 deforested lands in the Appalachian Range 

 and elsewhere, with authority to reforest 

 them; empowering it to exercise the right 

 of eminent domain, in such cases as might 

 be necessary; authorizing the adoption of 

 rules for the distribution of the waters of 

 all streams tributary to the navigable water- 

 ways and particularly those which are in- 

 terstate? 



Such an act would vest in the National 

 government jurisdiction over by far the 

 largest part of the work of resource con- 

 servation and would create a central ad- 

 ministrative system which would result in 

 great and lasting good and be more effec- 

 tive than any other system. 



But it may be asked. Why may not the 

 States exercise the powers herein suggested 

 as likely to be better performed by the Na- 

 tional government ? To this I answer : 



First, the States as a rule do not seem 

 disposed to act for the preservation of their 

 natural resources either with respect to the 

 land owned by them or by the exercise 

 of their police power. There are, how- 

 ever, some notable exceptions to this rule. 



Second ; even in cases where the States 

 have legislated with reference to the sub- 

 ject of the distribution of waters, whether 



from interstate or intrastate streams, there 

 is such a lack of uniformity in legislation, 

 as well as in judicial interpretation, that it 

 is difficult, if not impossible, to determine 

 tile rights of individual citizens. 



It is well known how unpopular was the 

 policy of National Forest creation in its in- 

 ception in all the States. The range user 

 and the small settler along the edges of 

 the forests had come to feel that they had 

 a right by prescription to use as they saw 

 fit the unsold portion of the public domain. 

 I myself was of the number to oppose the 

 policy, but that opposition was the result 

 of lack of information as to the correlation 

 of water conservation, soil erosion, flood and 

 drouth, and the uniform distribution of 

 waters for reclamation of the semi-arid 

 regions of the West. The movement, I as- 

 sure you, now meets my hearty approval. 



The unpopularity of the Forest Reserve 

 is gradually giving way to acquiescence and 

 approval, and all opposition, I am sure, will 

 vanish when the rules for their administra- 

 tion can assume the order and method of 

 a code, and people come to understand bet- 

 ter the objects and purposes underlying it 

 all. 



Who doubts for a moment that State effort 

 along these lines would have entirely failed, 

 and that but for the persistent, indomitable, 

 and intelligent effort of Gifford Pinchot, 

 who deserves a very warm place in the hearts 

 of his countrymen, even National effort 

 would have to come to naught? 



But the difficulties that beset State con- 

 trol can be better illustrated by reference to 

 the distribution of waters for irrigation pur 

 poses, particularly where the rights of citi- 

 zens of different States along the upper and 

 lower stretches of interstate navigable waters 

 and their tributaries are involved. 



To aid in the full enjoyment of these 

 rights, there should be a uniform code gov- 

 erning both the distribution and use of 

 waters, and an administrative system that 

 can reach across State lines and enforce by 

 proper proceedings all rules and regulations. 



The National Irrigation Congress, held at 

 Boise, Idaho, in September, 1906, realizing 

 the difficulties in the way of regulating the 

 distribution of waters along such streams, 

 appointed a committee of expert irrigationists 

 lo examine into the matter and report to the 

 next Congress. This was done at Sacra- 

 mento, Cal., the next year, and the 

 committee reported amongst other things as 

 follows : 



"If there is to be any protection of priori- 

 ties across State lines, it should be by a Fed- 

 eral administrative system corresponding in 

 character to that needed for the establish- 

 ing and protection of rights within a State. 



"While it is true in the administration 

 of water rights upon interstate streams by 

 different States, the right of appeal to the 

 Federal courts exists, that remedy is ex- 

 pensive, slow and unsatisfactory. A de- 



