Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />UU'J ;', <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Two more preliminary remarks to clear the air. I have <br />entitled this "A Middle Gl'ound". I did this consciously <br />because I believe there are areas where the states must <br />forever remain subordinate, and areas where the federal govern- <br />ment must--or should--forever remain subordinate, and that the <br />answer to our problems lies in the middle ground. <br />Secondly, I am at odds with those of the federal govern- <br />ment who seek to superimpose federal rights on existing state <br />rights~ and, as many of you represent federal agencies, you <br />are entitled to know that I am a prejudiced observer, and do <br />not purport to have a completely open mind on this subjeot. <br />At the risk of over-simplification, let me suggest that <br />the problem oons1sts pr1mar1ly of d1fferentiation between the <br />two sources of federal control or lack of oontrol over water <br /> <br />rights. One source 1s const1tut1onal power-derived from the <br />interpretation of the federal const1tution. The other 1s a <br />right held by the federal government as the propr1etor of <br />federally owned lands. <br />I be11eve that if we are careful to distinguish between <br />these powers on the one hand, and these rights on the other, <br />we will avoid much fuzzy thought, and will be able to oonsider <br />the problem with more rational minds. <br />The powers are threefold: The treaty making power under <br />the supremaoy olause,lthe apportionment power under the <br />jurisdiotion of the Supreme Court in the event of disputes <br />between states2 and the so-called "navigation servitude" under <br />the oommeroe olause of the Constitution.3 <br /> <br />-2- <br />