IO 



CONSERVATION 



;i of a court, once rendered, remains 

 uly settles the particular ques- 

 I in the case, while conditions 

 <>n on either side of the 

 re constantly changing and the 

 i uat'T for irrigation rapidly growing." 

 \\lnN n is true that some of the States 

 d fairly good laws governing 

 the distribution of water for irrigation and 

 other purpo-. even in these there is a 



lack ..i" uniformity and a conflict of judicial 

 interpretation. A few instances might serve 

 th<- difficulties of an equitable ad- 

 ion Hi water rights on interstate 

 creams. I'.ear 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 art- 

 irrigated from its waters in each of 

 -tales through which it flows, and each 

 e lias a different law. 



Lesser Snake River crosses the boundary 

 Colorado and Wyoming four 

 times. Adjudications as to the rights of 

 \\aier users iii Wyoming are not heeded in 

 Colorado and nVf versa, and there is no 

 authoritative administrative system. 



I lie Arkansas River is another instance. 

 It rises in the Rocky Mountains, Hows for 

 ,<ix) miles in Colorado, crosses into Kansas, 

 g it for 310 miles, enters Oklahoma, 

 and empties into the Mississippi on the east- 

 ern boundary of Arkansas. A suit was re- 

 > -ruth instituted by the State of Kansas 

 lie 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 

 -"iiii sort of interstate regulation will even- 

 tually he necessary. 



Other instances might be cited, but these 



are sufficient to illustrate the difficulty which 



- State regulation and control of waters 



u and other purposes. 



1 here are again other cases where a 



stream has its source in one State and its 



: s are used for irrigation and power 



in another; the latter State has no 



r or authority, if the necessity should 



to go into the former and construct 



-eservoirs, no matter how valuable 



Plight he. 



1 would not for a moment be understood 



that Congress has any power, 



authority, to disturb rights 



ier which have become vested through 



nal or ws. On the contrary 



it such rights should be protected 



'ed by the course here 



'or .nal control and ad- 



n the interest of these 



M as for those yet to accrue, 



1 immediate action should 



Who could have foreseen, when 



adopted, or even a quar- 



Hury 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 effective, 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 oi 

 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 

 ihcir 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 



