Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1910-09-08

that time 3.476.4i2 acres have been re-
stored Tor se..lenlenr OF the original four
| million. because they do not contain pow
| er sites: and meantime there have been
| newly withdrawn 1.2i5 S92 acres on vacan.
| public land and 2i1,o07 acres on entered
| public land, or a total OF l,45S,So9 acres.
| These Withdrawals made from time to
| time cover ell the power sites included
in the first Withdrawals. and many more.
| on 135 rivers and in IL states. The dispo-
| sition OF these power sites involves ono
| OF the most difncult 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 graz
| can be made under this statute to con
Germs whose primary purpose is gener
| ating and handling electricity. The stat :
| ute of 1901 authorizes the secretary o;
| the interior to issue revocable permits
over the public lands to electrical power
| companies but this statute is woefully in
| adequate because II does not authorize
| the collection of a charge or fix a term
| of years. Capital is slow to invest in an
| enterprise founded on a permit revocable
| at will.
1t is the plain duty Of the government
| to see to II that In the utilization and de-
velopment of all this immense amount
| OF water power, conditions shall be Inn
| 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
| " ata hn Tn fhA or tAa
| where these sites are. the riparian own
| err 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 It is proposed that the govern
| ment in dealing with its 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 DO furnished to
| the public, and forbidding the union Of
| the particular power with a combination
|
oily by forbidding assignment of the
| lease save by consent of the government.
| 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 proprietorship of the govern
ruent in the riparian lands. 1t 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 ii is violation of the states rights
l question the validity OF this objection
| The government may impose any condi-
| tons that 1t chooses in its lease Of its
own property, even though IL may have
| the same purpose. and in effect accom-
plish just what the state would accom-
| plish by the exercise of it's sovereignty
| There are those land the director of the
| geological survey, Mr.. Smith, who has
| given a great deal of attention TO this
matter, is one OF them) who insist that
| this matter OF transmitting water power
| into electricity, which 5can be conveyed
| all over the country and across state
| lines, is a matter that ought to be re-
| tanned by the general government, and
| that IL should avail itself of the owner
| ship OF these power sites for The very
| purpose OF co-ordinating in one general
| plan the power generated from these
| government owned sites.
Arguments Against Idea.
On the other hand, it is contended that
| 1t would relieve a complicated situation
| II the control of the water-power site
| and 1.-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-
tons 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 a 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 It 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 legis-
|
| ject to corporate influence and control
than would be the central government; in
reply IL is claimed that readjustment
| of the terms of leasehold every ten years
| would secure to the public and the state
| Just and equitable terms.
| do not express an opinion upon the
| controversy thus made or a preference
as to the two methods of treating water
power sites. l shall submit the matter to
| nd hat
of the two plans be adopted.
have referred TO the course of the last
| 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 as to the validity of these with
drawals as a great step in the direction
of practical conservation. But II Is only
one of two necessary steps to effect what
should be our purpose. 1t 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 II Is of the ut
most Importance that such withdrawal
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 tho
remission to remote generations to decide
what ought to be done with these means
of promoting present general human COM
fort and progress. For II so, 1t Is certain
to arouse the greatest opposition to con-
servation as a cause, and II 1t were q
correct expression Of the purpose Of con-
servationists II ought to arouse this op-
position. As have said elsewhere. the
problem Is how to save and how to util-
lie. how to conserve and still develop;
for no sane person can contend that It ID
for the common good that natures bless.
ings should be stored only for unborn
generations.
I beg of you, therefore. in your DELHI