OCR Text |
Show -61- where navigation is relatively unimportant but where diversion of water for beneficial uses measures the capacity of tha region for human existence. This particular decision well might have rested upon treaty obligations and pre- servation of waters on the public lands of the United States«lul More fortunate was the decision next to follow which recognized the right of one State to restrain another from polluting the waters of a river common to both and useful in its natural condition to supply water for domestic consumption.-^ By the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the United States apparently recognized the arid west as including the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, and the States of California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming; for Congress there provided that the major portion of receipts of the federal government from the sale of its western public lands t!Shall be «•• reserved ••• to be used in the examination and survey for and the construction and maintainanoe of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters for the reclama- tion of arid and semi-arid lands in the said States and Territories This act, with its many amendments, has been the source of power for the numerous reclamation projects of the United States in the region to which it applies; evidencing now a congressional policy extending consistently lUi In Australia, where aridity is comparable with that of the western section of the United States, the federal regulation of commerce "between "the Australian States is made subordinate to the "reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation" by express provision of the consti- tution of Australia* Section 100 of that instrument, effective July 9# 1900, is as follows $ "The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the rights of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the -waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation*11 Consulti Newton, Federal and Unified Constitutions (Longmans, Green and Co., London). ^Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S, 208, 21 Sup. Ct. 331, 1*5 L. Ed. U-97 (1901), 200 U.S. i+96, 26 Sup. Ct. 268, 50 L. Ed. 572 (1906), 202 U.S. 59a, 26 Sup. Ct. 713, 50 L. Ed. ll60 (1906). The Court first recognized the right of Missouri to prevent pollution by the Sanitary District of Chicago in dumping its sewage into the Mississippi River via the reversed Chicago River, the Desplaines, and the Illinois River; but on the second appeal the Cour*t held the evidence insufficient to prove the existence of any such pollution at St. Louis, hence the bill of complaint by Missouri -was dismissed without prejudice. In the final opinion, the Court said: "If we suppose a case which did not fall within the power of Congress to regulate, the result of a declaration of rights by this court would be the' establishment of a ru3_e whioh would be irrevocable by any power except that of this court to reve*rs© |