The Commission also has in mind the preparation of a bill looking to the conservation of the waters of the State. While Montana has many valuable water-powers, most of which are still undeveloped, the principal use of water in the State is, and always must be, for the irrigation of the land; nevertheless, much of the water of the State is available for power purposes which could not be made available for irrigation. Under a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning with the case of Martin vs. Waddell (16 Peters, 367) decided by Chief Justice Taney in 1842, down to the case of Kansas vs. Colorado (206, U. S.), the beds of all navigable streams below high-water mark, together with the waters flowing over them, belong absolutely to the State, subject only to the right of Congress to regulate commerce, and are subject to State control. On the other hand, the land bordering upon such streams all belonged to the general Government originally, and in many places available for power sites the lands bordering on the streams still belong to the General Government. In order to develop these power sites the work must be undertaken by both State and Nation, or by their joint consent; and it is hoped that some legislation may be secured in the State and in Congress regulating this joint control. Much has been said and written in regard to the compensation due the Government, either State or Nation, from the owners of developed power sites such as we have in Montana; but the Montana Commission is more interested in the power to regulate rates than in the power to exact compensation for the use of the waters, for the reason that all compensation paid to the Government must eventually come from the consumer, and in any event would be comparatively small, while the regulation of rates to the consumer is the only power necessary to complete control and the prevention of monopoly—although it is believed that some compensation should be exacted. Such legislation would eventually conserve the undeveloped water-powers of the State, but other questions arise as to those sites which have already been developed.
There are four dams across the Missouri river in Montana, either completed or in process of construction, each of which utilizes, or is intended to utilize, the entire flow of the river. All of these powers were developed under special Acts of Congress passed after Montana became a State; but in no case was the consent of the State obtained, or even sought. The Commission has not yet decided whether it will attempt to bring these developed powers under State control or not, and of course has not devised any method of doing so (in case it should be deemed advisable to attempt it), although individual members of the Commission—including the writer—have expressed themselves as decidedly of the opinion that the owners of these developed powers, not having obtained any consent from the State for the construction of their dams or for the use of the water, may be brought under State control. The Montana Commission looks upon this water conservation as its main work for the immediate future.
On the whole, the Commission feels that it has already accomplished considerable in the way of practical Conservation, but that there is much more to be done, some of which it hopes to be able to accomplish at the coming session of the Legislature during the first of the coming year.
REPORT FROM NEW MEXICO
Colonel W. A. Fleming Jones
I come from a Territory that for sixty years has been knocking at the doors of Congress, seeking admission to the sisterhood of States. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that our Territory should be admitted to Statehood "at the proper time" (which was to be judged by the Congress of the United States), and to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution. The implied requisites for admission are population, taxable wealth, and the desire of Statehood. All of these we have in abundance, including a population that exceeds by far that of any of the States at the time of their admission, with the single exception of Oklahoma, and something that is by no means generally known is the fact that our Territory has fewer foreign-born citizens per thousand than any State in the Union. However, the present Congress has enacted legislation under which we may be admitted, and our Constitutional Convention is now in session, framing a fundamental law that I am sure will meet with the approval of Congress and the President. But for the fact that the best brains of our Commonwealth are engaged in the work of framing this Constitution, a much larger representation would have been present here.
New Mexico is proud of what she has done in the cause of Conservation. The Act of the Thirty-eighth Legislative Assembly creating our Conservation Commission is broad in its scope and is a model for those States which have not enacted any such legislation.
I hope to attend the Third National Conservation Congress, not from a Territory whose people are wards of the Government and not considered capable of the management of their own affairs, but as the representative of the Great State of New Mexico, the forty-seventh star in our flag.
REPORT FROM NEW YORK
J. S. Whipple
Chairman State Forest, Fish and Game Commission