The Green Forest tribune., 1910-09-09

tDaI tune 5,4(o,44z acres nave been stored for settlement of the original four million, because they do not contain pow CT sites; and meantime there have been newly withdrawn 1,245 s92 acres on vacant public land and 211, ,007 acres on entered public land, or a total of l, ,466, ,S99 acres. These withdrawals made from time to time cover all the power sites included in the first withdrawals, and many more, on 1855 rivers and in Il states. The dispo- sition of these power sites involves one of the most difficult questions presented in carrying out practical conservation.
 The statute of 1891 with its amendments permits the secretary of the interior to grant perpetual easements or rights of way from water sources over public lands for the primary purpose of irriga- ton and such electrical current as may be incidentally developed, but no grant can be made under this statute to con cerns whose primary purpose is gener- ating and handling electricity. The stat ute of 1901 authorizes the secretary of the interior to issue revocable permits over the public lands to electrical power companies, but this statute Is woefuRy in adequate because 1t does not authorize the collection of charge or nx E term of years. Capital is slow to invest In an enterprise founded on a permit revocable at will.
 It is the plain duty of the government to see to it that in the utilization and de- velopment of all this immense amount of water power, conditions shall be i'm posed that will prevent monopoly and will prevent extortionate charges, which are the accompaniment of monopoly. The difficulty of adjusting the matter Is ac- centuated by the relation of the power sites to the water, the fall and flow of which create the power. In the states where these sites are, the riparian own CT does not control or own the power in the water which flows past his land. That power Is under the control and with In the grant of the state, and generally the rule Is that the first water user Is en- titled to the enjoyment. Now, the pos session of the bank or water-power site over which the water is to be conveyed in order to make the power useful, gives to its owner an advantage and certain kind of control over the use of the water power, and 1t is proposed that the govern ment In dealing with It's own lands should use this advantage and lease lands for power sites to those who would develop the power, and impose conditions on the leasehold with reference to the reason ableness of the rates at which the power, when transmitted, is to be furnished to the public and forbidding the union of the particular power with combination of others made for the purpose of monop- oly by forbidding assignment of the
  Serious difficulties are anticipated by some in such an attempt on the part of the general government, because of the sovereign control of the state over the water power in its natural condition, and the mere proprfetorship of the govern ment In the riparian lands. It is con tended that through its mere proprietary right in the site, the central government has no power to attempt to exercise po- lice Jurisdiction with reference to how the water power in a river owned and controlled by the state shall be used, and that 1t Is a violation of the states rights. I question the validity of this objection. The government may impose any condi- lions that 1t chooses in It's leasa of Its own property, even though 1t may have the same purpose, and in effect accom- plish just what the state would accom- plish by the exercise of its sovereignty There are those (and the director of the geological survey, MT. Smith, who has given a great deal of attention 10 this matter. Is one of them) who insist that this matter of transmitting water power into electricity, which can be conveyed all over the country and across state lines, is a matter that ought to be re- tained by the general government. and that 1t should avail itself of the owner ship of these power sites for the very purpose of co-ordinatng in one general plan the power generated from these government owned sites.
 Arguments Against Idea.
 On the other hand, 1t Is contended that 1t would relieve a complicated situation if the control of the water-power site and the control of the water were vested in the same sovereignty and ownership, viz, the states, and then were disposed of for development to private lessees un- der the restrictions needed to preserve the interests of the public from the extor- tions and abuses of monopoly. Therefore, bills have been introduced in congress providing that whenever the state au- thorities deem a water power useful they may apply to the government of the United States for grant to the state of the adjacent land for a water-power site, and that this grant from the fed eral government to the state shall con tain a condition that the state shall never part with the title to the water power site or the water power. but shall lease 1t only for a term of years not ex- ceeding fifty, with provisions in the lease by which the rental and the rates for which the power is furnished to the public shall be readjusted at periods less than the term of the lease, say, every ten years. The argument Is urged against this disposition of power sites that legts- lators and state authorities are more sub Ject to corporate influence and control than would be the central government; in reply 1t is claimed that a readjustment of the terms of leasehold every ten years would secure to the public and the stato just and equitable terms.
 do not express an opinion upon the controversy thus made a preference as to the two methods of treating water power sites. I shall submit the matter to congress and urge that one or the other of the two plans be adopted.
 h~u fo ha oft ha Iou ut administration and of the present one in making withdrawals of government lands from entry under homestead and other laws and of congress in removing all doubt to the validity of these with drawals as a great step in the direction of practical conservation. But 1t Is only one of two necessary steps to effect what should be our purpose. It has produced a status quo and prevented waste and ir- revocable disposition of the lands until the method for their proper disposition can be formulated. But 1t is of the ut most importance that such withdrawals should not be regarded as the final step in the course of conservation, and that the idea should not be allowed to spread that conservation Is the tying up of the natural resources of the government for indefinite withholding from use and the remission to remote generations to decide what ought to be done with these means of promoting present general human com fort and progress. For, If so, 1t Is certain to arouse the greatest opposition to con servation a cause, and if 1t were correct expression of the purpose of con- servationists 1t ought to arouse this op- position. As I have said elsewhere, the problem Is how to save and how to utii- ize. how to conserve and still develop; for no sane person can contend that it Is for the common good that natures bless ings should be stored only for unborn generations.