The Washington times., 1913-01-28
THE WATER POWER MIDDLE.

hopeless and impractcable division OF power ar
jurisdiction, between Federal and State COVER
ments, than resides in the water-power muddle no
commanding attention in Congress. 1t is ore
those impossible conditions due to our dual form
government, that enforces the conviction that col
stutonal convention and general overhauling OF tt
fundamental compact is needed.
NavigabIe rivers are under the Federal Cover
ment SO far as concerns their navigation. But h
States none the less own the rivers. In an intr
state nayigable stream the water is the States, M
Uncle Sans; the river bed under the water is III
States, not the nations.
The national power extends merely to superyisio
of that stream with reference to navigation. Til
State may not obstruct or authorize obstruction {
navigation, save terms to which the nation agree
Now observe what complications arise from tn
division of authority:
number of years ago clever engineer invest
gated the rapids in the Mississippi near Keokuk.
saw magnificent power opportunity, raised som
S20,000,000 to develop it, and came to Washingto
to get permission TO build dam. After nvestigs
tion by the Government engineers the Government
authorized the dam, on the condition that two hug
locks be built to carry vessels around it. In consid
Grafton of this work, which is conceded to be al
Improvement rather than an obstacle to navigation
total of 100000 to 100000 of power to be developed
which the power company may use, sell, or giv
away it likes There is no substantial restriction
or control as to capitalization, price Of the power
term of franchise.
That u.s. the Federal Government has assumed
to license that company to make power with wate
that belongs to Iowa and illinois, Each State own.
the water to the middle of the stream. Each State
owns the rived bed. underneath the water 10 tnt
middle of the stream. Yet the Federal Government
presumes to authorize erection Of vast works on t
land Of the States to impound the water of the States
and with il make power.
When those works were authorized number oil
years ago. nobody was paying much attention Il
water power problems. Nobody suspected Watel
Power trust 1t is amazing to know, on the authority
of Senator Cummins, who was seven years governor
of Iowa, that the promoters never approached the
Iowa authorities for permit license, or franchise
They assumed that Iowa had nothing whatever to
do with the control of its own river bed or its own
running water They relied entirely on the Federal
authority, which matter of fact extended only
&c the incident of obstructng navigation The same
is true of Illinois,
Neither State interfered, or has ever interferei
with the company Ii is about to begin operation Of
its great plant by far the biggest of the kind in
America. Only very recently has the idea occurred
to legislators and administrators in either State that
il would be worth while to inquire by what authority
the corporation is converting Illinois and Iowa water
and land into electric power to be shipped off into
9 third State-Missouri. There is now threat of an
injunction proceeding to determine the various rights
involved, and to establish, if possible the power Of
supervision and control that the Federal Government
did not undertake to exercise.
Connecticut has case not very different, save
:hat it affects intrastate stream. company wants
10 dam the Connecticut river and develop a huge
rover. The water in that river belongs to-Connect
cut. So does the river bed under the water. Yet
the Washington Government, whose authority is
limited to protection of navigation, proposes to
authorize this of the States land and water on
condition that the company shall erect locks to insure
against obstruction of navigation!
The National Government, however, is going
farther in the Connecticut river than it went in the
Mississippi river case. Recognizing the demand for
some governmental supervision of power concerns
in order that they may not impose excessive charges
overcapitaze their properties and claim perpetual
rights, the Government has negotiated with the pro-
noters, and proposes TO have Congress, in granting
ne dam permit, write into it certain provisions for
compensation to the National Government; control
s. the National Government, again, proposes to sell
the land and the water that Connecticut owns and
cut the usufruct in the Federal Treasury
It is right there that til: Stae-rgaters balk They
want the State to make its own bargain and get the
revenue arising from it. Technically, they seem to
have right on their side.
But as a matter of practical administration,
experience has proved that when these matters are
left to the States there is, in fact regulation at
i'll or none thai Is effective. The l'incislowa case
that has been cited shows how it works. Connecticut
like the two Western States has not nteposed objec
tinn TO the National Government selling the State