The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-03-16
THE WATER POWER REPORT.

The report of the Hon Herbert
Knox Smith, Commissioners Of Corpora.
tious. on the control OF water powers,
is an interesting document. 1t is de.
voted largely 10 the question Of the
mouopolizing Of water powers by few
corporations that have interlocking di-
rectorstes aud practically Identical in
terests. forming very large and wide
pervadiug control Of water power OF
the water power developed, Commits
sioper Smith thinks that some sixty
per cent is either controlled or strongly
groups comprise the combination and
all arc more or less interrelated At
the same time, ii is manifest that when
the commissioner speaks of the water
power that has been developed, one
need not run away with the idea that
the country is in any particular dan
ger. because the vast amount OF water
power that has not been developed
leaves that which has been, completely
in the shade Besides, there is the
opportunity for the development Of wa
ter power everywhere, and on scales so
broad and ma gni6cent, that it is bard
to see the peril that is urged in re-
gard TO the control Of all the water
powers The dam in the Mississippi at
keokuk is completed. which will fur
nish water power of enormous proper
tions. and other water powers can be
developed on that great river on scales
that have never heretofore been lma.g-
ined. There are also others rivers, as
III Missouri, the Ohio, the Colorado, the
Columbia, aud their headwaters and
tributaries. upon which undreamed-of
powers can be developed. II would
almost seem as though there would be
as much danger OF monopolizing the
air as Of monopolizipg the water pow
ers. However. il is well not TO scoff
at efforts directed toward the welfare
of the people, and whenever it is posi-.
bic for the Government to get in a rea-
souable conservation stroke, that stroke
should be delivered.
Dul IlHuI lDtIe 10 lut hi'"'iNs h"'
control has the Federal Government
over the waters of the country, aside
from the Davigable watcrs9 None
whatever. BY unanimous precedent
uoD.nayigablc waters Is In the States.
The United States assumes control on
lv where there is water power on the
public domain, and 1t assumes that con
troll by reason of its proprietorship of
the land rather than of the water. So
that to begin with, there Is subter-
fuge here that is by no means favora-
bic 10 the claim Of the National au
thority, and whenever the land is not
National domain. the National Govern
ment has nothing whatever to say about
it. In all the original States, and in
Texas. the United States Government
has no land except what 1t has bought,
and mas no means Of enforcing wa
ter power or forestry policy. II must
buy loud IN hotb cases IN order 10 have
ANY jurisdiction; while as to the waters
ou the public domain in the great
mountain region, the United States has
never undertaken TO assume auy Jurls-
dictiou over them, nor TO control the
waters nor the use OF them, until TINS
reecut attempt to control by reason
OF the ownership OF the land and not
of the waters. 1t would have been
quite competent, of course, when all
this region WAS III the territorial con.
dition. for the United States 10 have
passed irrigation codes and taken CON
trol of the waters. But it never did
so. aud the coutrol Of the waters bas
always been local. In Utah, as every
body knows, the State irrigation law
undertakes 10 control the waters, and
does control them, and regulates the
water rights. This is perfect exam.
pie of the respective jurisdictions, The
State of Utah has no control over the
National domain. but it has complete
iur rsdictiou aud control over the waters
within the State.
Ii is not easy. therefore. 10 say Just
what the Cuitcd States can 10 as a
straightforward wafer propositions: 5W,
in the discussion, something may be