lO 



CONSERVATION 



cision of a court, once rendered, remains 

 fixed and only settles the particular ques- 

 tion involved in the case, while conditions 

 surrounding irrigation on either side of the 

 State line are constantly changing and the 

 use of water for irrigation rapidly growing." 



While it is true that some of the States 

 have adopted fairly good laws governing 

 the distribution of water for irrigation and 

 other purposes, yet even in these there is a 

 lack of uniformity and a conflict of judicial 

 interpretation. A few instances might serve 

 to show the difficulties of an equitable ad- 

 judication of water rights on interstate 

 streams. Bear River begins in Utah, flows 

 into Wyoming, crosses again into Utah, re- 

 turns to Wyoming, then into Idaho and 

 empties into Great Salt Lake. Lands arc 

 being irrigated from its waters in each of 

 the States through which it flows, and each 

 State has a different law. 



Lesser Snake River crosses the boundary 

 line between Colorado and Wyoming four 

 times. Adjudications as to the rights of 

 water users in Wyoming are not heeded in 

 Colorado and vice versa, and there is no 

 authoritative administrative system. 



The Arkansas River is another instance. 

 It rises in the Rocky Mountains, flows for 

 300 miles in Colorado, crosses into Kansas, 

 traversing it for 310 miles, enters Oklahoma, 

 and empties into the Mississippi on the east- 

 ern boundary of Arkansas. A suit was re- 

 cently instituted by the State of Kansas 

 against the State of Colorado to determine 

 the rights of the citizens of the two States 

 with respect to the waters of this river. It 

 is safe to predict that the final determina- 

 tion in this suit cannot and will not settle 

 finally the rights of all the parties, and 

 some sort of interstate regulation will even- 

 tually be necessary. 



Other instances might be cited, but these 

 are sufficient to illustrate the difficulty which 

 besets State regulation and control of waters 

 for irrigation and other purposes. 



There are again other cases where a 

 stream has its source in one State and its 

 waters are used for irrigation and power 

 purposes in another; the latter State has no 

 power or authority, if the necessity should 

 arise, to go into the former and construct 

 storage reservoirs, no matter how valuable 

 they might be. 



I would not for a moment be understood 

 as claiming that Congress has any power, 

 jurisdiction, or authority, to disturb rights 

 to water which have become vested through 

 National or State laws. On the contrary 

 I insist that such rights shotdd be protected 

 and will be promoted by the course here 

 suggested for National control and ad- 

 ministration. It is in the interest of these 

 rights, as well as for those yet to accrue, 

 that radical and immediate action should 

 be taken. Who could have foreseen, when 

 the Constitution was adopted, or even a quar- 

 ter of a century ago, the change that has 



taken place in the semi-arid regions through 

 the distribution of water? The beginning 

 has only been made, and the prediction may 

 safely be hazarded, that by the construc- 

 tion of dams and storage reservoirs and the 

 'enactment of laws for the proper distribution 

 of water for reasonable and beneficial use, 

 hundreds of thousands of acres of land, 

 which to-day are considered worthless, will 

 in the next quarter of a century be reclaimed 

 and will furnish homes for thousands of 

 sturdy men and women. It is to protect 

 the men of the present day and age and 

 their descendants in the enjoyment of their 

 vested rights against the men of the future, 

 and those of the future against the un- 

 reasonable demands of the present, that 

 Federal jurisdiction and legislation is here 

 suggested. With the Federal authorities in 

 control of the undisposed-of portions of the 

 public domain in the several States, includ- 

 ing the forests within the reserves, and the 

 mines and minerals therein situate, the 

 navigable waterways with their tributary 

 streams, both for controlling their use to 

 maintain a uniform flow for the purposes 

 of navigation, and the distribution of waters 

 for irrigation purposes as an incident to 

 the maintenance of the navigability of the 

 rivers, and in control, as well, of deforested 

 areas owned and to be purchased for re- 

 forestation, there is no doubt that a policy 

 of Federal administration can be formulated, 

 that will do more for the preservation and 

 protection of our natural resources than is 

 possible to be done by the States acting 

 separately. But cooperation by the States 

 will still be necessary to accomplish the 

 highest results, and in what I have sug- 

 gested it is with the idea that such a move- 

 ment would have the hearty cooperation of 

 the State authorities. 



As to the policy of State administration. 

 I have pointed out some of the difficulties 

 in the way of administration on the part 

 of the States, of a portion at least, of our 

 National resources. There is no question 

 but that Federal administration and control 

 would be more efifective, and yet I realize 

 that jealousies between the States them- 

 selves, and fear of Federal encroachment 

 upon the rights of the States, will make it 

 difficult to agree upon a proper course m 

 legislation. The work in hand is so im- 

 portant, not only to us of the present, but 

 to future generations, that we ought to be 

 able to lay aside all jealousies, and endeavor 

 in a spirit of the loftiest patriotism to 

 reason together and formulate, if possible, 

 a policy of administration that is best for all. 

 Before the older States realized the value 

 of their forests, their waterways, their mines 

 and minerals, they had allowed all to slip 

 from their hands and into private owner- 

 ship. The same thing is now going on in 

 the younger States, and soon there will be 

 left nothing to conserve of what we received 



