Title: Growth Until World War I
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003116/00001
 Material Information
Title: Growth Until World War I
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: President's Water Resources Policy Commission
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collections - Growth Until World War I
General Note: Box 12, Folder 9 ( Water Resources Law - Vol #3 - 1950 ), Item 34
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003116
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



basins. In the early "recovery" part of the period, attention
was focused upon a new aspect of water-resource development
and conservation. Projects were Undertaken as a means of
relieving unemployment as well as for development and con-
servation of natural resources. Also, increased attention was
given to the public utilization of the completed projects under
policies calculated to improve the economic and social welfare
of the Nation. Throughout the whole period, increasing atten-
tion was given to conservation and public protection of ex-
haustible resources, and to planning for their development
on a basin-wide, all-purpose basis with growing reliance upon
multiple-purpose projects.
Moreover, we shall outline the recent accentuation of interest
in discovering and correcting deficiencies in organization so far
as they relate to comprehensive development.
Finally, si ce river-basin development has varied from
region to region, we shall take note of the more significant
aspects of efforts toward comprehensive development in each
of the major regions.

Growth Until World War I

As we saw in preceding chapters, most early river develop-
ments were single in purpose.
EARLY INTwRE ATION OF USEs.-Well before the turn of the
century, however, specific acts of Congress recognized inter-
connection between certain functions in the development of
rivers. An 1879 example combines navigation and flood con-
trol.7 Likewise, an 1888 statute took cognizance of the inter-
relationship of irrigation and flood control.8 Nor did early
legislation overlook the possibility of relating navigation im-
SSee Act of June 28, 1879, 4, 21 Stat. 37, 38, 33 U. S. C. 647, establishing
the Mississippi River Commission and directing it to survey the river
and develop plans which would "correct, permanently locate, and deepen
the channel and protect the banks of the Mississippi River; improve and
give safety and ease to the navigation thereof; prevent destructive floods;
promote and facilitate commerce, trade, and the postal service." For later
statutory details concerning navigation and flood control, see supra, pp. 98,
141-142.
Act of October 2, 1888, 25 Stat. 505, 526.







provement to power development.9 Noteworthy also is the
fact that early legislation for the benefit of flood control related
that function to the promotion of the interests of navigation
and commerce.10
CALIFORNIA D~BBIS CoMMIssioN.-Another early exception
to the single-purpose legislative treatment is an 1893 provision
for the California Debris Commission. For Congress here rec-
ognized the effect on navigable capacity resulting from -the en-
croachment of debris from mining operations, natural erosion,
and other causes. The Commission was directed to adopt plans
to improve the navigability of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River systems, deepen their channels and protect their banks.
In addition, these plans were to reconcile, as nearly as prac-
ticable, the interests of hydraulic mining and navigation. In-
deed, the Commission was to examine the practicability of sites
for storage of debris or water, or for settling reservoirs: to
protect the navigability of the rivers, to afford flood relief, and
to provide sufficient water to maintain summer scouring forces
therein."
AsSETIoN OF CONTROL OVB ARTIFICIAL O STERCTIONS.-
Moreover, with the increasing number of artificial obstructions
to navigation, Congress early decided upon the need for uniform
SAct of August 11, 1888, 1, 25 Stat. 400, 417; Act of September 19, 1S6,
26 Stat. 426, 447; Act of June 28, 1902, 32 Stat. 408, 409; see also Act of
March 3, 1879, 20 Stat. 377, 387. In addition, the Act of August 11, 1888,
also gave the Secretary of the Army discretionary authority to provide
"practical and sufficient fish-ways" whenever the improvements obstruct
fish passage. 11,25 Stat. 425.
Act of September 19, 1890, 1, 26 Stat. 426, 450, appropriating funds for
the Mississippi River Commission to be used "in such manner, to such
extent, and in such proportion as in their opinion shall best promote the
interests of commerce and navigation." See also Act of March 1, 1917,
i(a),39 Stat. 948, see 33 U. S. C. 702; Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat. 184;
Act of Jlly 29, 1921; 42 Stat. 146; Act of August 18, 1921, 42 Stat. 171; Act
of May 81, 1924, 43 Stat. 249; Act of May 15, 1928, 10, 45 Stat. 534, 38,
83 U. 8. C. 702j.
SAct of March 1, 1893, 27 Stat. 507, see 33 U. S. C. 661 et seq.
"Under a 1988 amendment, the Secretary of the Army may contract to
supply storage for and use of outlet facilities from debris storage reservoirs
for domestic and irrigation purposes and power development. Act of June
25, 198, 52 Stat. 1040, see 33 U. S. C. 688.






890 -
control. The 1890 River and Harbor Act prohibited the crea-
tion of any obstruction, not affirmatively authorized by law, to
the navigable capacity of any waters in respect of which the
United States has jurisdiction." It also declared unlawful the
building of structures in navigable waters, without the permis-
sion of the Secretary of the Army." Sustaining the authority
thus asserted by Congress, the Supreme Court in 1899 made it
clear that the right to control applied not only to navigable
waters, but also to any obstruction to navigable capacity, wher-
ever or however done." And in that same year, Congress re-
peated and strengthened the prohibition which it had estab-
lished in the 1890 statute."
Another early decision of the Supreme Court recognizing
interrelationship of river uses merits notice here. Speaking of
the right of the United States to control the use and disposal
of water power from a federal navigation works, the Court said,
"in such matters there canbe no divided empire." "
REATIONsHIP OF FOREST CovER.-Having authorized the
President in 1891 to establish forest reserves out of specified
lands in the public domain, Congress in 1897 expressly recog-
nized the role of forest cover in affecting water flow when it
prohibited establishment of national forests except to improve
and protect forests, "or for the purpose of securing favorable
conditions of:.water flows," or to furnish a continuous timber

"Act of September 19,1890, 10, 26 Stat. 426, 454.
S 7, 26 Stat. 426, 454.
United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 708 (1899).
"Act of March 8, 1899, 10,80 Stat. 121, 1151, 33 U. S. C. 408. 11 9-20 of
this Act were the result of a report prepared after a study of all then-exist-
tng general laws for the maintenance, protection, and preservation of the
'navigable waters of the united States. 1. Doe. No. 293,54th Cong., 2d sess.
(1897). This study had been directed by 1 2 of the River and Harbor Act of
June' 1896, 29 Stat 202, 284. The 1899 Act provided for control over con-
struction of bridges, dams, dikes, causeways, wharfs, piers, breakwaters,
bulkheads, or any other structures in navigable waters; over excavations and
fillings; over deposits of certain refuse matter in navigable waters; over
sunken vessels and floating of logs; and over the anchoring of vessels as ob-
structions to navigation.
Green Bay d Miss. (aal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. 8. 58, 80 (189),
reh. den., 173 U. S. 179 (1899). See supra, pp. 19-20.


__






supply." Moreover, in an act "for the protection of the water-
sheds of .navigable streams, Congress in 1911 authorized the
acquisition for national-forest purposes of private lands "lo-
cted n the headwaters of navigable streams," which may be
necessary to the regulation of th flow of navigable streams."
THEa 1906 GENERAL DA Acr.-In the early part of the n-
tury, Congress continued to enact special legislation authoriz-
ing specific projects for nonfederal water-power development.
In 1906, the General Dam Act was passed prescribing condi-
tions for general application to nonfederal power developments
thereafter authorized by. Congress in navigable waters.m" It
recognized interrelations of power, navigation, and fish preser-
vation, by making provision for the installation of navigation
and fish-passage facilities. But these provisions seem designed
to serve the passive purpose of preventing obstruction by the
dam, rgher than afirmotively promoting nonpower uses.
MumrPe USES AT RECLAMATION DAMs.-Only a few months
previously, Congress had expressly recognized the interrela-
tionshipof power and irrigation when it supplemented the 1902
Reclamation Act by:providing for power development and
lease of any surplus power or power privilege at reclamation
projects., At the same time, it authorized contracts for water

See supra, pp. 354-S55.
u Act of March 1,1911, 8,6,6 Stat. 961, 92, see 16 U. S. 0 5. Later,
this Act was amended to authorize acquisition of lands for promoting the
production of timber as well as for protecting navigation. Act of June 7,
19241, 7, 48 Stat. 58, 6,54,16 U. S. 0. 56.
See smpr, p 262and n. 41, p.66.
"Act of June 21, 1906, 84 Stat. 886. This Act granted authority to con-
struet and maintain adam "for water power or other purposes" across any
navigable water of the United States after approval of the plans and speci*
cations by the Secretary of the Army and the Chie of fEngineers: Thes
ofcials could impose such conditions and stipulations as theydeemed nec-
essary "to protect the present and future interests of the United States,"
which might include a condition for construction without expense to the
United States, of locks, booms, sluices, or any other structure necessary in
the interests of navigation. The operator was also required to maintain
such lights and other signals thereon and such flshways as the Secretary of
Commerce prescribed.
SAct of April 16, 1906, 5, 84 Stat. 116, 117, see 48 U. S. 0.522.







supply with towns on or in the vicinity of the prbject, having a
water tight from the same source."
RAINY RIVER AND JAMES RIVEl VETO MESSAGES.-Of historic
importance is the 1908 veto of the Rainy River bill. Having
earlier indicated to Congress his views of the need for com-
prehensive consideration of water-resource problems,,2 Presi-
dent Theodore Roosevelt was explicit in vetoing the Rainy
River bill which w uld have granted extensive privileges, for
noifederal development" His message asserted that the nav-
igability of inland waterways should be improved "upon~ a con-
sistent unified plan by which each par should be made to help
every other part." slack water for nIvigation, he said, may be
provided by a dami which may "develop power of sufficient
value to pay in whole or in part for the improvement of naviga-
tion at that point, and if there isany surplus it can bespent
upon improvements at other points in accordance with the gen-
eral plan.""
The President called for substitution of a definite policy
which would provide, among other things, for some designated
official to have the duty of seeing to it that in approving future
plans, the maximin' development of navigation and power
would be assured. Or at least that developments not be per-
mitted which would ultimately interfere with better utilization
of the water or complete development of the power.

4,34 Stat. 116, 43 U. S. 0. 567.
"In his 1903 veto message relative to a bill granting consent for private
construction of a power dam at Muscle Shoals, President Roosevelt asserted
that power should be developed at, and aid tn, financing federal navigation
improvements. Moreover, he stated that the "entire subject of granting
privileges of the kind referred to in this bill should be considered in a com-
prehensive way." See 36 CONG. RBz. SQ1;for text of message vetoing H. R.
14051, 57th Cong., 2d sess. (1903).
SSen. Doe. No. 4388,60th Cong., 1st sess.,; 42 CoNq R m. 4698 (1908). But
the bill was passed over the veto. Act of May 23, 1908, 35 Stat. 273.
"But he was not recommending federal control over power development
solely for the purpose of financing river-improvement works. For in point-
ing out the power potential of our navigable streams, he declared that "This
natural wealth is the heritage of the people. We are now at the
beginning of great development in water power. Its use through electrical
transmission is entering more and more largely into every element of the
daily life of the people." Ibid.






In the following year, President Roosevelt reiterated most of
the foregoing considerations when he vetoed a similar bill grant-
ing broad rights for nonfederal development on the James
River.2"
INLAND WATERWAYS COMMISSION.-Events of the next few
years reflect President Theodore Roosevelt's dynamic influ-
ence on conservation. In March 1907, he had appointed the
Inland Waterways Commission, whose assignment was "tol
evolve a comprehensive plan designed for benefit of the entire
country'" 2 This Commission's 1908 Preliminary Report was
concerned principally with inland waterways, but devoted much
attention to.the need for multiple use and comprehensive plan-
ning, saying, among other things: 2
The control of waterways on which successful navi-
gation depends is so intimately connected with the pre-
vention of floods and low waters, and works designed
for these purposes; with the protection and reclamation
of overflow lands, and works designed therefore; with the
safeguarding of banks and maintenance of channels,
and works employed therein; with the purification and
clarification of water supply, and works designed there-
for in conjunction with interstate commerce; with con-
trol and utilization of power developed in connection
with works for the improvement of navigation; with
the standardizing of methods and facilities and the co-
ordinating of waterway and railway instrumentalities;
and throughout the larger area of the country with rec-
lamation by irrigation and drainage, and works de-
signed primarily for these purposes-that local and
special questions concerning the control of waterways
should be treated as 4a general question of national
extent, while local or special projects should be con-
H. Doe.N. 13. 50, 60th Cong., 2d sees.; 43 CONG REO. 978-980 (1909).
Sen. Doe. No. 825, 60th Cong., 1st ses., p. iii (1908). Members of the
Commission were: Theodore E. Burton, Chairman, J. H. Bankhead, Alex-
ander Mackenzie, W. J. McGee, F. H. Newell, Francis C. Newlands, Gifford
Pinchot, Herbert Knox Smith, and William Warner.
"Id. pp. 22-23.






sidered as parts of a comprehensive policy of waterway
control in the interests of all the people.
In addition, the Commission obserVed that wherever water
may be.the chief source of power, monopolization of the elec-
tric energy generated involves monopoly of: *
power for the transportation of freight and passengers,
for manufacturing, and for supplying light, heat, and
other domestic, agricultural, aid municipal necessities,
to such an extent that unless regulated it will entail
monopolistic control of the daily life of our people in an
unprecedented degree. There is here presented an
urgent need for prompt and vigorous action by State
and Federal governments.
No less emphatic was President Roosevelt's letter transmit-
ting this report to Congress. Observing that the report rested
upon the fundamental concept that every waterway should
be made "to serve the people as largely and in as many different
ways as possible," the President added: a
Every stream should be used to its utmost. No stream
can be so used unless such use is planned for in advance.
When such plans are made ,w shall fjud that, instead of
interfering, one use can often be made to assist another.
Each river system, from its headwaters in the forest
to its mouth on the coast, is a single unit and should
be treated as such.
The President asserted that it was not "possible to deal with a
river system as a single problem" since uses of waterways were
dealt with by agencies scattered through four federal depart-
ments." Moreover, he observed that the report noted that
national policy had theretofore been one of "almost unrestricted
disposition and waste of natural resources," and that the report
emphasized "the fundamental necessity for conserving these
resources upon which our present and future success as a
"Id. pp. 21-22.
Id. p. iv.
"Ibid.






nation piharn ily rests."" Remarking upon the urgent need
for prompt and decisive action, the President concluded that: *
he deveopient of our waterways and the conserva-
Stion of our florets are the two most pressing physical
needs of the country. They are interdependent and they
should be met vigorously, together, and at once.
NATISAL a CONsaRVATION CoM~t&ssiO.-Also of importance
towr review is the 1909 Report of the National Conservation
Commission." This Commission observed that: E
Broad plans should be adopted providing fr a system
of waterway improvement extending to all uses of the
waters and benefits to be derived from their control, in-
eluding the, carificatio of the water and abatement
of floods for the benefit of navigation; the extension of
irrigation; the development and application of power;
/ -the prevention of soil wash; the purification of streams
... for water supply; and the drainage and utilization of the
waters of swamp and overflow lands.
To promote and perfect these plans scientific investi-
gations, surveys, and measurements should be con-
., tinued and extended, especially the more accurate de-
termination of rainfall and evaporation, the investiga-
tion and measurement of ground water, the gauging of
streams and determination of sedimnet, and topographic
SBarveys of catchment areas and sites available for con-
trol of the waters for navigation and related purposes.
Sld. p. v.
,d.p. vi.
Sea. Do No. 476, 60th ong., 2d seae. (1909). The President called a
conference of governors and later created the National Conservation Com-
mission on June 8, 1908, to study and advise him respecting natural re-
sources and to cooperate with state bodies create fort similar purposes,
pp. 1, 11. An outgrowth of the conference of governors, tie Commission's
report of December 7, 1908, is signed by Gifford Pinchot, Chairman; W. J.
eeGee, Secretary, Section of Waters; Overton W. Price, Secretary, Section
of Forests; George W. Woodruff, Secretary, Section of Lands; and S. A.
Holmes, Secretary, Section of Minerals. Pp. 1, 26.
Sen. Doe. No. o676, voi 1, p'. 24 (1909). See also Buuaywt No. 4, T n
RM tVT orF THa NATIO~ioN CONS1eVATXON oMMsiso06, isoIed by the Joint
Committee on Conservition, pp. 18-19(1909).






That Report was promptly approved by the Joint Conserva-
tion Conference.Y7 Delegates to theo Conference included gov-
ernors of 20 states and territories; representatives of 22 state
conservation agencies, of 60 national organizations, and of fed-
eral agencies; and members of the National Conservation Com-
mission. In addition to generally approving the Commission's
Report, the Confeience said specifically, "we also especially
approve and endorse the proposition that all the- uses of the
wafers and all portions of each waterway should be treated
as interrelated."'
CONSIDmafTION RELATED USES IN IMPROVEMENTS FOR
NAVIGATION.--In a 1909 statute, Congress acted to assure con-
sideration of river uses in addition to navigation., This Act
specified, with regard to fiver examinations and surveys therein
authorized, that reports thereon shall contain such data as it
might be practicable to secure regarding terminal and transfer
facilities, the "development and utilization of water power for
industrial and comtiA oial purposes," and such "other subjects
as may be properly connected with such project.'" But it con-
tained a proviso that consideration of "these questions" shall
be given "only" to their bearing union the improvement of
navigation, and 'to the possibility and desirability of their
being coordinated "in a logical and proper manner" with navi-
gation improvements to lessen the cost and to compensate the
Government for eipenditutes made in the interest of'naviga-
tion. These provision were repeated in the River and Harbor
Acts of 1910 and 1912, the lattie however permitting consid-
eration to be given also to the relation of these questions "to
the development and regulation of commerce.""I In 1913,
the provisions as 'modified in 1912 were enacted as general
legislation and remain in effect today.
SSen. Doc. No. 676, p. 27.
bid.
*Act of March 3, 1909, 5 13, 35 Stat. 815, 822.
'Act of June 25, 1910, 3, 36 Stat. 630, 668; Act of July 25, 1912, 2, 37
Stat. 201, 231.
SAct of March 4, 1913, 3, 37 Stat. 801, 825, 33 U. S. C. 545. It is not
clear whether the proviso limiting the study of "these questions" only
to their bearing upon the improvement of navigation, applies to all three







The 1910 and 1912 Acts also include otherAerrently effective
provisions relevant here. First, the 1910 River and Harbor Act
inaugurated arequigenent that surveys must include "such
stream-flow measure ita, and oth investigations qf the
watersheds as may be necessary for preparation of plans of
improvement and a'ioper cotisideration of all uses of the
stream affecting navigation." And whenever permission for
I nstrxctiion of dams in navigable streams is granted or is under
consideration by Congress, this statute permits such Army
Engineer surveys and investigations of the streams affected as
"are necessary to secure conformity with rational plans for the
improvement of the streams for navigation." "' -Second, the

subje ts to be studied, that's, to terminals, power development, and "other
subjects" connected with the project--or whether it applies merely to the
"other subjects." The paragraphing of the 1909 and 1910 Acts seems to
S suggest that it applies to all three, hereas that-of the 1012 and 1o18 Acts
| eem to suggest that. it applies only to the "other subjects."
None of the committee reports on any of the four Acts sheds light on the
question. Only two of these reports mention the survey provisions at all,
and neither of them deals with this question., Rep. No. 436, 61st.Cong.,
24 sees. (1910) says, with regard to the 1910 Act: "The terms of the pro-
vision are in the usual fori,:ands i intended to extend somewhat the scope
of such surveys and investigations considered desirable and necessary in
framing and executing proper plans for the improvement of6navigable
rivers, and also to cure the information necessary for intelligent action
on applications for the opnstructiu t of dams in, navigable streams." p. 24.
This Idlguage may ihean that information on power development was to
be obtained for its own sake and not merely as an incident to nvigStion
improvement. Thie Federal P'ower Commisi-on, with its authority to
make invest ions concerning the utiiz=attn of: water resources, had not
yet been etd. See infro, pp. 406-408. Rep. No.395,62d Cong., sees.
(1912) refers to the, proptSpoptf. the 1912 Act as It relates to terminals,
saying: "thebill extends somewhat the scope of the investigations heretofore
required of the engineers in preliminary and other examinations and reports
thereon. Among these are inqUlries into both private and public ten~l-

in any. pent, .laer the 1913 Act the. Army Engineers must Uipit l e
invlestiation of at least the "othersn bjects"-those other thanlnavigation
works, -terminals, and power development-to their relation to navigation
improvements and "to the development and regulation of commerce." Of.
the limitation of the. "308 Beports" mentioned, infra, pp. 408-409.
"Act of June 25 1910, Js,6 Stat. 630, 668, 83 U. 546.
43f4


I







1912 River and Harbor Act permits tie inclusion in the per-
manent parts of authorized navigation dsina of *sch founda-
tions, driceg; and other works, as msy be considered desirable
for the future development of its water power."" '
TE 1910 G, m DA A A ,-- ,1910, Congress amended
the 1906 General Dam Act. As we have seen,.the 1906 Act
required approval of plans by the Secretary pf the Army, and
of fishways by the Secretary of Co~ qre,,, The 1910 Act
added a requirement that in administrative action upon plans,
consideration must be given the.bearingof the proposed
structure "upon a comprehensive pan for theimprovye enof
the waterway over which it is to be constructed with'a view
to the promotion of itsnavigable quality and for the full devel-
opment of water power." "
TBE 1911 AmNNUA RotPOr T'F, SCBwEARuY OF THB IN-
TRIloR.-Further official recognition of the relationships among
water-resource development purposes was given by the Secre-
tary of the Interior in 1911. In recommending congressional
consideration ofA the whole prPblem of water-power develop-
ment and controlhe pointed out tha t
it is increasingly clear that proper development and
protection of stream flow -for all purposes- including
S those of navigation, domestic use, irrigation, and power,

SActof July 25, 1912'i 12,87 Stat. 201,233,83 U C. 000.
"Act ofune 23, 1910,3 6 Stat. 5B.
S1 1, 36 Stat. 58. Another provio added by this section directed the
collection of charges for the privilege "granted to all dams" itlthorized under
,the Act which receive direct benefit from federal head*ateir sge rese-
oirs, from the acquisition and maintenance of any forested watershed, or
lands 'located by the United Statefs at headwaters of navigable streams,
whenever these things be for the benefit ofilnvigatloBn n such steams. '
AiwUAL RagB or T n SECBnrA Y or THE IRNBTOB, voL 1, p6 1 .(1911).
The report also said: "As a general principle, the revenues derived in this
way ioauld be devoted to waterway improvement, with specialirre for the
river system and watershed of the stream from which the' revenues are
derived *. Logically, the revenues derived from the water power
may belong to the Nation for its general use, but it would seem that national
and local interests can best be reconciled by devoting these revenues to local
improvements so far as such improvements are necessary or wise. oeb a
use removes one of the principal objections to Federal control." Mbd.







:i reqirethat, the stream and its teaches from sources
.to mouthpbQud be re rdPd,s wesntiaJl y a uWit
Na LALJ WWak, WATiS Commra ON.---N6teworthy also is
the 1912 Final Report of theo National Waterways Gdmmis-
sin. heatedd byaEt oef (ongreeslaid composed of 12 M Con-
grefsnea,: this Commission-had been assigned thae,41iofWA-
-vPtig ,," '.queiA pertaining to water transportation and
a.Wsprovement of ,waterwaya."* In itallp. PElim
Report, this Commission.had already emphasized the need for
consideration of multiple uses in planning navigtiop improve-
ments, recommending "greatest care in the conservation of
Water power for 'the'i~ bf the people." i And in its Final
Report, the Commiasino pointed out thi heed for i -compre-
hensive, storage-reservoit system to be atilized iiditaneously
fet flood prevention, navigation, and power development."

Sen. Doe. No. 4, 62d Cong., 2d ses. (1912).
SAct of March 3, 1900, 7, 85 Stat. 8si; S1. See aib Act of February
21, 1~1, 14 88 Stat. 98; O8K, eatnding the Comnialsan's life from March
4, 111 to Novemaber 4,. 194, nd requiring it to uqp t certain additional
special investigations. The Senate had earlier sought unsuccessfully to
continue it for two years. H. Rep. No. 1488, 61st Congm, 2d suse., pp. 10, 17
(1910).
SSen. Doc. No. 49, App. I, pp. 8285. .; i. 7 =
m Sen. Doe. No. 469, pp. 228. "A reservoir system, in order to be utilized
slmaltaneoual for flot praemntlon, aiding navigation, aLn power develop
renIt, muit be coutroled or operated by ,eme pbll e authority., ;,.* *
Thus far th& Imlrovemeat, o river3r in thisL cbntr, except in the arid
Regions, has been alment 'lelr for the purpose of avigaton. The,other
purposes havebeen almost e th dy disrcg rdthle` lhe position of the-Corps
'Wt hBigieeeR,-who have superwision over sver movements has been that
an inMceased depth of a stream for navigation could be seemed moeu more
ehe ply by these lof dams, dierting walls, and other deviceea.than by
eoiBtrntfug reservoirs at headwaters, and in this view the. eagieers have
n -neral bee~ rightP; peartieularl: when it Is recalled t at the exisIng
or prospeceve commerce on few oi our streams hass jutifid extenaLve
expesdMtures for this purpose, an: o 'ly on a comparativel fest Are.aes
"d suitable reservoir site exist.- When, however, the improvement ot a
sltreamh I oesidered itromfthn standpoint of all its benefflcala as as
Selu aithe pe.entiton of dniage by floods, the policy of constructing reeer-
volrh may betomein particular cases, more feasible. The combined bene-
fits: rom flood prevention, from additional power development, and, from
a more uniform flow of the stream may warrant-the adoption of a system
of reservoirs which, if intended for aiy one of these purposes alone .would
not be practicable." Id. pp. 24-25; seelalso p. 174- ,;- .:: : ..
961611-l---27


- A







Similarly, it noted the need for coordination of forest policies
with river-development priga." The Commission asserted
that there can be no doubt that the authority of Congress
"reaches to. the remotest sources in the mountains 6f every
navigable stream' A' After reviewing numerous decisions of
the Supreme Cotur, it concluded "that 'the Government
may eeasititiorially etend its jurisdiction tA'ples-
tions more rem6tely connected *ith 'the rights of navigation,
or even wholly unrelated."" El:ewhere, t)ieomxissidn made
this forecast:
With the increasing unity of, ur national life and the
growing necessity of securing for human needs the max-
imum beneiial use of the waters of eyery srean it
will become increasingly necessary to treat every stream
with all its tributaries as a unit. In the nature of the
case so comprehensive a policy could b successfully
administered only by the Federal Government, and con-
sequently the eventual desirability of Federal controls
easy to predict.

SId. pp. 28-7 and App. V, pp. 205-278.
*4. p. 47.
"Id. p. 44. These were among the excerpts quoted: "Let the end be
legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all eass
which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, whieh are
net prohibited,.but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Coestitution,
are constitutionaL" McCuUoch v. Marantsd, 4 Wheat. 814, 421 (U. 8.
1819). "It is not a prohibition of any obstruction to the navigation, but
any obstruction tothe navigable capacity, and: anything, wherever done
or however done, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States
which tends to destroy the navigable capacity of :one of the .naigable
waters of the United{States; iswithin the terms of the prohibition." Unitd
Mates v. Rio GrandeIrrigation Co., 174. U 8. 690, 70, (1899),. CoTngress
has authority in the exercise of Its powers to regulate commerce among
the several States, to construct, or autho~dri individuals or corporations to
construct railroads across the States and Territories of the United States."
Oaifornia v. Central PAoWto Railroad G.., 127 U. S. 1, 2 (1888). Particular
emphasis was also placed upon the two Green Bay cases: Kaukauna Water
Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254 (1891) ; and Gre
Bay & Miss. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58 (1898); see supra.
pp. 19-20.
SSen. Doc. No. 489, p. 52.






WHriC RIVER AN COOSA ErVBm VErOEs.-In 1912, Congress
passed a bill authorizing a nonfederal power dam on the White
Fiver a rhort distance upstream from where certain federal
navigation improvements had been completed and others were
contemplated, and downstream from the point then generally
cosi~ered to be the "head of high-water steamboat navig-
tia"IL" The dam would have increased navigable capacity
above it, and could have been so constructed as to form a part
of an extension of the projected downstream federal izprove-
ment. TheArmy Engineer River and Harbor Board had rec-
ommended.against present prosecution of the navigation proj-
ect because of "lack of present commerce," but the Chief of
Engineers had reported that, future conditions might lead to
an extension of the federal improvement as far as the dam site.
President Taft vetoed the bill, noting three principal objec-
tions. First, since the dam was "'capable of becoming a part
of this general Federal improvement," he opposed a provision
which would have permitted the dam tobecome the property
of-the State of Arkansas upon expiration of the federal permit,
saying:"
To introduce a diversity of title into a series of dams
S. which may al be~me, eventually a part of a single im-
provement directed at the same end would, in my opin-
Sion, be highly objectionable.
Next, he pointed to the conflict between this provision and
the policy of the General Dam A tof 1910 which would vest
control and tite in the Federal Government at the expiration
of the permit. And finally, he noted the absence of a provi-
sion for imposing a chatre for the privilege granted, such charge
to bemused in the interest of furthering navigation in the River.
Less thki three *eeks thereafter, President Taft vetoed a
bill for nonfederal power development at a pint on the Cbisa
River where "comprehensive plans" by the Army Engineers
H. R. 20847; IH. Doc. No; 890, both 62d Cong., 2d sess. (1912), 48 CoNo.
REO. 10818 (1912).
SH. Doc. No. 899, p. 2.


lk"*






contemplated on- of a series of navigation dams, noting in this
instaiee that thb bill presented: :
a typical tase of a river whetr its development by the
Federal government for navigation should go hand in
S hand with its development fr water power.
He said tht the bill contain a "fatal defeat" in iti failure to
pridide means f" C exaciitg reasonable compensation for the
privilege granted, iridthat thi ftAs :as improvident as throw-
ing away 'hth~b i asSet of the Government."
CONSIDERATION 9, RELATED ISSMN M P c6VBLAE"Th itOB
DLooD CONTROL.-A few years l the need for comprehensive
study ofa river bah was recognized in 1917 flood-control leg-
isltion."' Congri~aitiire provide that "all examinations and
surveys of projects relating to fibod control shall include a
comprehensive study of the watershed."' Moreo*er, it re-
quired that reports thereon shall'include data in regard to (1)
the extent and character of the area to be iffeted by the pro.
posed improvement,'(2) the probable effect upon any navigable
water, (3) the pbsiible economical development and utiliza,
tion of water power, and (4) "such other uses as may be
properly .elat ted witto or eOodineh projec."~
"S. 7343; Seni Db6.iB. 949, both i ig., 2d rSe. (l );148 CoNe.
lSc ,'11798 (191~Jia). ; .. j- i"- ;: : ... 1-,
"Act of March 1, 1917, 39 Stati 94. ..'The #ou aCompqttee pn Flood
Control was first established by the 64th Congress in 1916. See 53 Cooe.
Bno 2838,~24081(6t )ii. 7;, ...
: S.39Stat.950,33 U... e,701. : ., ;..
SId. An indication of the effect of thip lnguage on the scope of flood-
control surveys apperli In the 6llbowig excerptt fr6in da Armyr gi6ieer
maorandum on the iirop 'of a Sacraineof~ aa il lteMin Baptn refpit of
,i APny lngi9eergF. "Tl~mereport of the ChlJe of Engineers was made
pirsuant to specfic.congressional authorizations for surveys o doffod control
and iated water se .i 'Itld dot prewnitia aititi~i ed ads ti firlit't~
development. of'ill of twe-.water resoqie. of the Saaramentl-Sap Joaquin
Basin, as it was, recni~ that ultimate plans for such full development
would require additifbna 'projects and w*6td extend far into the future,
whereas the need for flood control and conservation of flood waters lis a
present urgent necessity in California. It was also recognized that Federal
responsibility for irrigation improvements has been assigned by Congress
to the Bureau of Reclamation." H. Doc. No. 367, 81st Cong., lst seas.,
To. IX-X (1949).






SWAraT WAYsCoMMi2siON.--That same year, 1917, witnessed
a significant legislative recognition of the comprehensive-devel-
eplaent concept when Conress established the Waterwas
GCoanission." it autorised.the Cozpnmision: .0o
-i to bring into coordination and cooperation the 6hginaer
Sig, scientific, and constructive services, bureaus, boards
~ d cao ni~ a f :the. several governmental depii*t
S- nt&s the United SBiaeandd oommimnius nseatedtibi
S Congress that relate4o study, development, or contraM
.. waterways and water resources and subjects .related
,thereto, or to the .development and regulation istate and foreign.enanercp, with a view.to uniting such
services i investigating, with respect to all watersheds
; in the United States, questions relating to the develop
meat, improvement, regulation, and control of-naviga-
S .ti, as part-tciterteraed foreign commerce, indlud-
iwg therein. thheteed q4estiona of rria i'on, drainage,
-I forestry, arid wand oap ad. reclwatioq,:elarifcation
of streoans, xgaltio-of, ow', Contol, of floodes:utiliW
tion of water power, prevention of soil eroasi and waose,
storage, and conspeytion f watevatir fo agricultural, in-
1 dustrial, manipald ~gd domestic uses, cooperation of
S railways and terasys, and promotion of texihal and
transfer facilities, to secure the necessary data, and to
S formulate and report to Congress, as early as practicable,
a comprehensive plan or plans for the development of
i a r g wavaidie y resources, of the United States
Sor the purpose of navigation and for every useful pure
pose, and recommendations for the-modification or dib
continuance o any project herein or heretofore adopted.
he Commission was also directed to give consideration to mat-
ters to be undertaken by the United States alone or in coo" a
tion with states and local entities and individuals, with a view to
assigning to each such portions as belong to their respective
"jurisdictions, rights, and interest."
"Act of' Agust 8, 1917, 18 ,4 Stat. 250, 209.







Although finally adopted in 1917, the idea of a waterways
commission already had an involved and informative history."
For over ten years, Senator Newlands of Nevada had sought its
adoption in one form or another. In 1907, he introduced an
Inland Waterways Commission Bill." His proposal was ad-
vanced again in 1910 as an amendment to the Weeks Forestry
Bill, and in the 64th Congress, as an amendment to the 1917
flood-control legislation." Finally, in the 65th Congress the
Senate Commerce Committee approved the proposal as an
amendment to the 1917 River and Harbor Bill after it had been
stricken in the House on a point of order." Originally, Senator
Newlands had sought a development commission with an au-
thorized annual appropriation of $60000,000, for ten years. As
adopted, however, the provision made no money available to
the Commission to carry out the projects it recommended, giv-
ing it instead the wide investigative authority encompassed in
the foregoing quoted provision. Moreover, before being offered
for vote in the Senate, the language was revised to read as fol-
lows, the bracketed words having been added and retained in
the bill as passed: 6
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to delay,
prevent, or interfere with the completion of any survey,
investigation, project, or work herein or heretofore [or

SIn documented detail, this history is set forth in 56 CONG. Rwc. 9831-9855
(1918).
S 500, 00th Cong., 1st sess. (1907).
See 45 CONG. REc. 8813-8818, 8897 (1910) ; 46 CorN. REO. 2587-2595 (1911).
The latter proposal was defeated 29-2 after several Senators, including some
of its supporters, expressed concern lest the House refuse to accept it and
thus jeopardize the entire bill 54 CONG. RE. 4290-4295 (1917). In addition,
it should be noted that a Senate amendment to the 1913 River and Harbor
Bill, stricken in conference, would have created a river-regulation commis-
sion consisting of four Cabinet officials, two Senators, and two Representa-
tives to make investigations and plans relative to the use of water for navi-
gation and other purposes. H. Rep. No. 1607, 62d Cong., 3d sess., pp. 1, 12
(1913).
"Sen, Rep. No. 81, to accompany H. R. 4285, 65th Cong., 1st sess., pp. I, II,
and see p. 6 (1917) ; 55 CONe. REC. 4330-4331 (1917).
"55 Conm. Pac. 4330-4331 and compare 55 CONGe. REO. 5508 (1917).





4W
hereafter] adopted or authorized upon or for the im-
provement of any of the rivers or harbors of the United
States fo with legitative action upon the reports here-
S tofore or hereafter presented.]
In the Senate, the amendment establishing the Commission
was adopted by voice vote, without debate." An attempt to
deleteit was defeated in the House by vote of 207-142. -
But the efforts creating the Waterways Commission were in
4i" For its.members were never appointed, largely because
of our participationin World War I.~ Moreover, the provision
cqeating it was expressly repealed by the 1920 Federal Water
Power Act," after the House refused to accept a Senate amend-
ment which would have preserved the Waterways Commission
but changed its authorized membership."

"55 CONe. RwX. 5508 (1917).
"55 CONG. EO. 5732. The Conference Committee had modified the pro-
visio slightly (Sen. Amend. No. 41). See H. Rep. No. 116, 65th COng., let
sees., 4 (1917). For the debate hi the Senate, see 55 CoNo. R1c. 5701-5705,
and in the House, see i. pp. 5723-5732. One opponent in the House re-
marked that the confereephWd providedd for the creation of a commission
to study territorial conditions in every particular so far as water is con-
cerned ekceet prohibition." He expressed surprise that this had not been
tcuded. ad. p. 5728.
USee 59CoerIO. It. 117311776 7778 (1920).
SAct of June 10,1920, 29, 41 Stat. 1068, 1077.
SSen. Amend. No. 59, rather than repealing 18 of the 1917 Act, would
have amended it to omit its third and fourth paragraphs and to change the
membership of the Commission to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, Director of Geological Survey,
Forester and Chief of the Forest Service, Director and Chief Engineer of
the Corps of Engineers. 50 CoNG. RBo. 1535; see also id. pp. 1178-1176 and
7770-7773. This amendment had been adopted in lieu of one which would
have transferred all the powers and duties of the Commission to the new
Federal Power Commission. See 59 CONe. REO. 1173.
Rejecting the Senate amendment, the Conference Committee said, "In view
of the fact that many of the duties imposed upon this Waterways Commis-
sion will be assigned to the Water Power Commission under the pending
bill and other duties have already been assigned to other governmental
agencies under the transportation act of 1920, the House conferees opposed
this amendment. The Senate conferees receded, and the amendment has
been eliminated." H. Rep. No. 910, 66th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 13-14 (1920).




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs