OCR Text |
Show 386 effective through social, economic, and technological changes, as our Nation lives and grows. Thus, as the Supreme Court said in 1816:3 The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure through a long lapse of ages, the events of which were locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence. The powers granted by the people to the Federal Govern- ment carried with them inescapable responsibilities. As we have seen in previous chapters, Congress has employed its del- egated powers in assuming a variety of responsibilities in rela- tion to the development, utilization, and conservation of water and land resources. Thus, it has exercised its commerce power in regulating, protecting, and improving waterways for navi- gation use as well as in the control of floods. Its powers under the Property Clause have been utilized in laying the founda- tion for reclamation projects in the West. Use has also been made of the war, treaty-making, and general-welfare powers. In the exercise of these powers, Congress has additionally pro- vided for the generation of electric power. Similarly, pro- vision has incidentally been made for many other public pur- poses. And statutes seeking to coordinate land practices with water activities usually have relied, expressly or impliedly, upon a combination of two or more of these powers. But the enormity of the problem demands, as Congress has frequently recognized, coordination of legislative attention and action by the states and the Federal Government. The rights, interests, and responsibilities of both must be harmonized for effective answers. Similarly, cognizance must be taken of in- dividual rights and interests, and especially of rights to use of water and land derived under state law.4 Account must also be taken of the possibility of solutions by joint action of two or more states, but with an eye to legal and practical difficulties 3 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326 (U. S. 1816). See also South Carolina* v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448-449 (1905) ; United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 316 (1941). * See supra, pp. 32-50. |