Marca 1, 1912] 
vided definite methods by which it may be 
appropriated, as in the case of irrigation 
waters. Even on public lands the authority 
of the state has until lately not been ques- 
tioned. But with the rise of the conservation 
movement there has come about a demand 
that the federal government assert a right to 
the disposal of water-powers on public land, 
and especially in national forests. This de- 
mand has its origin in the belief that the 
western states are allowing the water-powers 
to be monopolized, and are in danger of losing 
all right of subsequent regulation, so that the 
public served by the power will be compelled 
to pay “all that the traffic will bear.” 
In the absence of any explicit law or pre- 
cedent for federal interference with water for 
power or irrigation, the proponents of the 
policy have grasped at general constitutional 
powers, such as “to promote the general wel- 
fare,” or the right to control navigation in 
rivers and internal waters. President Taft a 
year ago favored the assertion of a claim to 
the banks of the stream by the federal gov- 
ernment, so that the site would become para- 
mount to the water in a power installation, 
conceding that the state had exclusive juris- 
diction over the latter; the interposition of a 
technical claim to the stream banks would, in 
his opinion, operate to prevent the establish- 
ment of any power plants without federal 
approval, even though the government had no 
claim on the water. This admittedly tech- 
nical and strained position is just about par- 
alleled by his proposal that, since we have 
solemnly pledged our word to other nations 
that we will make the tolls in the Panama 
Canal equal to all, we will make some sort of 
a subsequent gift to our own vessels to equal 
the fees paid by them. The good intention 
we all concede, but lament the facile readiness 
to “beat the devil about the stump.” 
This is not the place for an adequate dis- 
cussion of the safeguards which the western 
states have placed around the disposal of water 
power, nor for a description of the propaganda 
by which, largely through misrepresentation, 
many people have been made to believe that 
SCIENCE 
339 
only in federal control could there be any 
assurance of permanent management in the 
interest of the people. Hnough to mention 
that fundamental safeguards are two—for- 
feiture for non-use, and the reservation of 
regulatory powers by the state. Both of these 
are embodied in the constitution of Idaho. 
But the most notable principle enunciated 
by Dr. McGee is his No. 30. It is as follows: 
30. The essential principle of natural equity on 
which specific legislation may rest has already 
found expression, both by statesmen and by power- 
ful associations of citizens including both jurists 
and publicists, in the incontrovertible proposition 
—now become axiomatiec—that all the water be- 
longs to all the people. 
So far is this principle from being true, 
either legally, equitably, or even as an ideal 
relation, that the reasonableness of the oppo- 
site view will appear immediately on stating 
it. If Dr. McGee is correct, then the general 
government should collect as a tax on every 
water power the full value of the power above 
a reasonable interest on the cost of installa- 
tion; from every user of irrigation water it 
should collect the difference in value between 
what will grow with water and without it, 
minus the cost of applying the water; from 
every municipality a tax on its use of water; 
even from the owner of a well a propor- 
tionate assessment. Otherwise the people as 
a whole can not derive the benefit which 
their ownership of all the water ought to 
entitle them to. A closer analysis would 
necessitate even a farther extension of water 
taxation, for it is obviously unjust to tax the 
western user of irrigating water while the 
eastern farmer is allowed the free use of rain- 
water. Such are the absurdities into which 
we are led if we admit the principle that all 
the water belongs to all the people. 
Is it possible to express in a simple way the 
correct principle as to ownership of water? 
Not in all relations, because of their variety. 
But some are unquestioned: a man owns the 
water in his well, we all believe; he has a right 
to the benefit of what falls from the sky on 
his land; communities rightly own the water 
that flows through their mains to their citi- 
