The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1908-04-27
DIVERSION OF STREAMS.
A Claim Of Our Government Which
Might Have Far-Reaching Results.


A scientist commissioned BY the Can
adam government 10 investigate the
problems connected with the utilization
Of streams whose natural flow is toward
Niagara Falls recently stated that A
proposed division in Canada Of 10000
cubic feet Of water second would not
only impair certain scenic effects in the
falls and rapids, but lower Lake Eric
three feet, which would in turn lower
I the Detroit river, Lakes Huron and
Michigan and compel corresponding
lowering Of all the canals depending
upon ank Of these lakes for water, as
Wen as all the hafbirs on the lakes,
thus greatly inpairing che nayigability
Of those bodies of water. In this case
the water diverted is proposed TO be
used for power and ultimately returned
to its natural course above lake On.
tario, which would not be affected, but
the damage inflicted both upon Canadian
and American interests by diversion on
50 large a scale III beyond calculation
/ The great lakes are merely enlarge
f0ents Of natural stream bed which
\ Il fed bysa multitude Of tributary
streams Ia this country and Canada adm
now that the possible effects of such
d diversion are beginning To he realized
the necessity Of a complete oyerhauling
Of the legal relations of tho public TO
flowing streams becomes evident.
In the United States the control of
navioable streams Ii vested in the gem
efal government while the laws regulat
iRg the treatment of nonnayigable
streams rest with the states in. which
| yagahle streams flow into those which
can be navigated Has the federal gov
ernment the right to interfere and for
lid diversions Of non-nayigable streams
under state laws on the ground that
such diversion may impair nayigationg
other words, has the federal govern
ment representing navigation interests.
tie ranaIan right til forbid diversions
epen 81 the most insignificant streams
/ in is cabre shall not be impaired If
that be true, what SECURITY can there
ha TO any title To the use of water di
verted from tributary of q navigabie
stream And IN cases where stream
rises III one state and flows through
Others how shall conflicting claims to
have control Of the waters BE- determin-
ed Rotn these eases were presented
L III che suif of Kansas VA Colorado ard
nither decided 1t was assumed that
diversions from the upper Arkansas
would not affect the navigabilitY 81
the Mississippi and the court said
nothing more. Az To the conflicting
claims 81 the two litigant states the
supreme court was not compelled To
decide them and did not hut it in-
timatea that should ii become necessary
iii any case 1t would not only decide
sucn claims, but from the necessity of
tho case since congress had no auth
GRITTY In the promises-it would yirtu-
ally enact the law under which they
would be decided.
1t i only recently in this country,
THAT We have begun IL realize the
power Of man 20 to mildly the oper
ations Of nature as to produce tremen
dous and possibly destructive change
ia THE face of the earth This can be
done by the removal of forests. 1t /
X evident that it may be done bv the |
uiFSisioit VI etlcaiilss ~ wy vase " 1
great water courses like the Great |
Lakes and their connections, which are
natural boundaries, or the Rio Grande I
river. which rises in this country and
becomes an international boundry /
lower down, It is evident that settle. |
ment can be effected only ~ treaty /
and mutual concessions. If We set up, !
as our government does against Mexi- |
60, that we may divert the entire flow
Of the Rio Grande before it reaches
Mexican territory. we may be hoist by !
our own peard. for by the same token I
Canada may divert streams which will 7
ruin some Of our costly internal water
ways.