: Moreover, treaties constitute a source for limitation on uses
within the United States of waters of international streams."
And it is plain that, in accordance with the express requirements
of the Constitution, provisions of valid treaties become the su-
preme law of the land to which other provisions of federal and
state law e subordinated."-
B: treaties with western tribes of Indians, the United States
has reserved certain rights to use of water. In the case of
Winters v. United States, involving such a reservation effected
by. an agreement ratified by act of Congress, the Supreme
Court said: 25
The power of the Government to reserve the waters and
exempt them from appropriation under the state laws
is not denied, and could not be That the
Government did reserve them we have decided, and for
a use which would be necessarily continued through
Congress is expressly empowered by the Constitution to levy
taxes and to appropriate funds to provide for the general wel-
fare of the United States."
It was early established that the Federal Government is one
*df delegated powers, but not until 1936 was it determined in
the Butler case that the General-Welfare Clause constitutes a
delegation of power separate from and not restricted by those
'iter enumerated in the same section of the Constitution, such
as federal authority oier commerce.252 Settling that point, the
"Of. Artisna v California, 283 U. S. 423, 458, n. 10 (1931).
United States V. Pink, 315 U; S. 203, 230-231 (1942).
m207 U. S. 564, 577 (1908). See also United States,v. Powers, 305 U. S.
527, 528-532 (1939) ; Conrad Inv. Go. v. United Stites, 161 fed. 829 (0. A. 9,
1908); United States v. Molntire, 101 F. 2d 650, 653-654 (C. A.,9, 1939);
United States v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 104 F. 2d 334, 336 (0C A. 9, 1989);
United States v. Parkins, 8 F. 2d64, 644 (D. C. Wyo. 1926).
U. S. CoNsT., Art. I, 8, cl.1; Art. i 9, cl. 7.
United States y, Buter, 297 U. S. 1, 64-66. (1936).
Court however left unascertained the scope of the general-wel-
fare power.- In the reCent Gertdch case, the Coiit noted
Congress has a substantive power to tax and appropriate
for the general welfare, limited only by the requirement
,that it shall be exercised for the common benefit as dis-
tinguished from some mere local purpose.
And then it asserted:
Thus the power of Congress to promote the general wel-
fare through large-scale projects for reclamation, irriga-
tion, and other internal improvement, is now as clear
and ample as its power to accomplish the same results
indirectly through resort to strained interpretation of
the power over navigation (italics supplied).
The italicized words render the dictum somewhat enigmatic.
The statement nevertheless seems to lean toward a view that
such projects may be validly authorized under the general-
welfare power. .I an* event,, the sole test indicated is that
the power must be exercised "for the common benefit as dis-
tinguished from somemnere local purpose."
-A river ;is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. "It
S offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among
those who have power over: it., Both States
have real and substantial interests in the ~iywer that
S;,,must be reconciled as bes4hy may be, The different
traditions and practices in different parts of the country
may lead- to varying results, but the effort always is to
secure an equitable apportidfiiient without quibbling
S297 U, S. at 68.
United States v. Gerlac. UAve Stock Co., 339 U. 8. 725, 738 (1950), citing
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. 619, 640 (1937).,
339 U. 8. at 738,
"New Jersey v. Netb Yor 283 I.S. 3386,42-34 (1931).