The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-03-09
FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.

This paper has from time to time
taken occasion TO protest against the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Fed
eral authorities, chiefly bureaucrats,
over the non-navigable waters within
the States. There has never been any
question of the rightfulness of the con-
troll by the States of non"navigable wa
ters within their borders, According
ly. the State of Utah and other States
of this interior region have legislated
upon this matter without reserve, pro-
viding for the disposal and use of the
waters within the State, the appropria-
tion of such waters, and establishing
rights to their use. We have urged that
the State Of Utah should remodel It's
water legislation according to the rec
concentrations Of the State Engineer,
and that it should put IN the amended
law distinct and clear assertion of
the jurisdiction Of the State over the
waters in Utah. But this legislation
appears to have failed for the present
session, much to our regret, for there
is no question but that there was need
of the amended legislation recommend
ed by State Engineer Tanner
We note that the same question pre-.
cisely has arisen in California with re-
gard to the desire Of San Francisco to
make water reservoir for the use of
the city In the Hetch.Hetchy valley.
The San Francisco Chronicle is out in
a very strong article Justly criticizing
Secretary Fisher for his disapproval
of tho city's effort in this direction,
and his veto upon its Hetch- Hetchy
reservoir project. Referring to Secre-
tary Fishers comment upon the duty
Of San Francisco to come to terms with
the Spring Valley Water Company and
the assumption of authority in the mat
ter by the Secretary Of the Interior, the
San Francisco Chronicle comments as
follows:
II it were only Fisher who made the
quoted remarks. they might be Ignored.
Unfortunately they represent the infiu-
ence Of the Washington environment,
where there is a growing determination
to use unquestloned Federal powers-as
control OF the postoffice-or powers which
are claimed-as the paramount control
of public lands within a state-to compel
| obedience 10 the Federal will in matters
absolutely outside Federal jurisdiction.
In this case Fisher proposes to use a
power over public lands which ne claims
for himself or Congress to compel this
| city to act In n certain way in con-
troyersy over which no Federal authority
would even claim Jurisdiction.
| That is Washington sentiment, which
| the people Of all the States only need
| to realize In order TO resist as a danger
to the Republic whenever that DISPOSE
| ton is shown.
In this case the way TO resist is clear.
| BY the laws of California the Hetch-
Hetchy supply belongs to US. with nil
! rights OF way and easements. or the
power TO acquire them. necessary to the
use OF that water. All the land involved
| is within the boundaries OF California
and Jurisdiction has been ceded 10 no
The thing to DO is TO proceed under our
| state laws 10 take possession or what
belongs TO US and as soon as resistance
measures 10 get a decision from the
| highest court as 10 whether the laws OF
California shall prevail within the boun-
daries OF the state.
That is precisely what The Tribune
has been urging the Legislature Of
Utah to do. The obnoxiousness Of the
assertion of Federal control by indi.
rect means "to compel obedience to
the Federal will in matters absolutely
outside Federal jurisdiction is the
nub of the whole question The Fed
cral autocrats undertake to make the
riparian control the absolute control of
the water. That is, the ownership of
the land, according to the Washington
autoeratic idea, carries with it the con
troll of the water. That this is a nox-
ious doctrine altogether there is no