OCR Text |
Show -16- though based on scientific direction, may be thwarted by inaction, or lax administration, in an adjoining State.62 The practical effect may threat- en an important food supply. These considerations are reflected in the constructive treatment by Washington and Oregon of the conjoint fisheries problems raised by the great salmon resources of the Columbia River. By compact the two States have a policy of cooperation based on minimum re- quirements for the protection of fish within the common area.63 A similar arrangement prevails between Delaware and New Jersey.61+ The country fur- nishes ample opportunity for the extension of this mode of regulation in the safeguarding of our fish supply.6i-ja The conservation movement gained its initial momentum through a recog- nition of the irreplaceable destruction of our forests. Chemistry may in- vent new forms or new uses of foodj unknown fuel may still be hidden in the earth. But new forests cannot be created except through very slow growth, nor can their need be replaced by substitutes. Climatic conditions, flood control, navigation, as well as our food supply, depend upon the range and density of our forests* Here again, we encounter situations for adjustment which cut across State lines and, therefore, necessitate interstate treat- ment. Legal authority is not coterminous with the needs for its exercise. Power to deal with the problem rests partly with the States and partly with the Federal Government as dominus of the public domain and as guar- dian of interstate navigation. The need for such a cooperative solution has been recognized by Congress in giving a general consent for future agreements between the States and the United States "for the purpose of conserving the forests and the water-supply of the States entering into such agreements. "65 62of course compact is not an automatic remedy. It requires vigorous and wise aotion by the contracting States. Referring to the Washington.- Oregon compact, the Oregon court notes Washington*s failure to enact suit- able legislation to carry into effect its provisions: "That the useful- ness of the act as a protective measure is largely impaired by the failure of the State of Washington to enact similar legislation is patent." Union Fishermen* s Co. v. Shoemaker (1921) 98 Ore. 679, 19U Pac. 85U, 855. 63see Appx. A, III, (29) infra. 6Usee Appx. A, III, (19) infra. 61+asee Secretary Hoover's call for a conference on cooperation by the coastal States to conserve fisheries along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts* New York Times* April 30, 1925* 65Act of Mar. 1, 1911 (36 Stat. at L. 961) amended by Act of Mar. 3* 1925, 68th Cong. 2d Sess. Public No. 591; Appx. A, III (26), infra. See also Report of Dept. of Agriculture (1911) U01-l|0l+; House Rep. No* 1036* 6lst Cong. 2d Sess. The possibilities of the compact idea in another field of conservation have recently been, adumbrated by President Cooliclge: "Many proposals have been put forward for exterminating the weevil* among which it seems probable that the most effective would be to starve it out of existence by absolutely discontinuing the growth of cotton year by year in successive zones. But there are great practical difficulties. The program would require the cooperation of the States throughout the cotton belt and of the cotton raisers in them. |