The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-11
THE FEDERAL INTRUSION.

| We notice that our contemporaries
in the Eastern States have difficulty in
understanding the position of the Fed
eral Government when it undertakes
TO control the water powers Of non.
navigable streams, 1T has been the
settled doctrine Of the Nation from
the first that the Federal Government
claims the right Of control over pavi-
gable streams and bodies Of water,
only. 1t has never asserted any claim
of jurisdiction, by supervision or other
wise, over non-navigable waters, The
noU-navigable streams of the various
States have always been under the
control of those States. without the
least question. Applying the matter
to Utah. there has never been any as
sertion OF Federal jurisdiction over any
waters III this State; but the control
of the State over those waters has
been absolute and undenied. Our State
legislation upon this question is COM
plete, full, and exclusive.
In view of these facts, which are
facts commonly known TO the public
everywhere in their general phases, the
newspapers Of the country are puzzled
at the position of the Federal Govern
ment where it claims to control the
non-navigable waters aud their water
powers in the different States. Thus
the Philadelphia Record comments as
follows upon recent incident relating
to the control Of non-navigable waters:
Secretary Stimsons recommendations
In the matter OF the omnibus dam bill,
just reported TO the House by the Com
merce Committee. embody the Roose-
veltian doctrine that the Federal Gov
ornment may claim, and ought 10 in
slst upon. the payment Of compensation
We'll established that Federal jurlsdic,
ton over inland waters is limited TO
the regulation OF navigation. Incidental
to this jurisdiction is the right to por-
init or TO inhibit the construction OF
dams and bridges over navigable
streams. The water. however belongs
TO the States, and the States alone
thereof for purposes other than navlga-
tlon. This regulative jurisdiction OF the
States Includes the right to exact "A
charge for the use OF water In the gem
The Rooseveltan doctrine has been
thrown into the discard, and the House
Will doubtless leave il there notwfth-
standing the effort of the Secretary of
War to rake II up again.
II is clear that the Record is alto
gether right upon this question; but
the asserted control of the Federal
Government over non -navigable waters
for water.power privileges rests upon
the control by the National Govern.
ment of the public lands It is irnpos-
sible to utilize these non-navipable
waters for power purposes unless one
can obtain the site and the use Of the
land on the banks of the stream, and
in the bed OF the stream itself. And
so, under this subterfugo. which is in
a way corollary OF the ownership OF |
the public domain. the Federal control |
over these water-power sites is asserted |
and maintained rs against the law and |
against any claimant. As a matter of |
fact and Of law, as we'll as Of unaues.
toned precedent from the earliest
times in the history OF our Govern
ment until the present, thero Is no
Federal jurisdiction over such water
powers. and there has never been anv
assertion on the part OF the Federal
Government Of any right whatever to
waters other than uavigable
waters, If there had been, the whole
irrigation system Of the Western court |
try would have bad 10 wait the action