Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-06-18
THE CONTROL OF WATER
w

THERE is new interest and much
discussion down east v the
question Of water power develop
ment and federal control over the
same. One would think that there
would be very little undeveloped
water power in New England OF
the crowded far eastern states, as
almost every little stream has its
local factory or power plant OF
some kind scattered along its banks
But we are told that there is a vast
amount of u~ndeveloped water power
in the eastern states and agitation
is rife for their development and
the utilization Of every horse power
possible. In early days no one dis
puted the fact that non-navigable
streams lay within the exclusive
sovereignty and jurisdiction of the
state. Still further back the state
claimed sovereignty and jurisdic-
ton over the waters of navigable
rivers also. But through court deci-
sions navigable streams were held
to be a means of interstate com
merce, and therefore under control
of congress, because the states had
ceded to the federal government
the power to control interstate COM
merce. Water power is a very diff
ferent thing from navigation and
federal control of water power
raises some interesting legal and
constitutional questions. The Prov
idence Journal discusses these
questions as follows:
THE authority of the govern
ment of the United States over in
land water is derived from the
power of congress to regulate COM
merce among the several states
streams obviously being natural
channels of commerce. In the evo-
luton of its control, congress has
appropriated hundreds of millions
of dollars to make waterways navi-
gable. The states and their citi-
zens are forbidden to erect dams
or bridges without consulting the
government, permission will be
granted only where the channel of
communication will not be OBJ
structed thereby.
Does the scope of the govern
ment's authority include anything
except, for the sole purpose of
facilitating interstate commerce.
the use of streams for navigation?
That may have been on occasions
past a question of some interest
to constitutional lawyers, but an
academic n since legislation was
always directed solely to the navi-
gable purpose until the federal
water power act raj passed in
1920. BY that law the nations
power development is placed under
the control of a federal commits
sion, composed of the secretaries
of war. interior and agriculture.
The state of New York is now
planning to question the constitu-
~tionality of this measure before the
supreme court.
THE contention will be that the
water power act extends the gov
ernrnent's authority 'wrongfully and
hurtfully, to~practically all streams
in the state, large and small, except
brooklets,'' and that to make leases
and grant licenses for power pur-
poses has no relation to navigation
or to interstate commerce. On the
face of it, indeed. there seems to
be no relationship. An issue is
raised, as has happened 50 many
times, of state versus federal au-
thority, in the twilight zone where
neither is exactly defined. The
water power act has been hailed as
a measure of immense public bene-
fit, though not so much because it
places control of the expansion of
a great industrial agency in the gov
eminent as because after a long
period of blind interference with
normal development, congress has
lifted the bars and provided what
promises to be workable legisla-
ton.
1T is interesting to recall that
the state of New York was respon-
sible, nearly a century ago, for the
ruling of the supreme court which
established the principle that con-
gress controls streams for the pur-
pose Of navigation. The state had
conferred on Fulton and Livingston
the exclusive right to navigate the
Hudson river with vessels moved