|
<br />system - the Yellowstone, the Missouri, the Little
<br />Missouri, the Colorado, the White - should be
<br />integrated into its own watershed republic. We might
<br />wish to divide the great rivers into two or three, but
<br />they should be coordinated by some larger authority.
<br />But if you divide, say the Colorado, into a series of
<br />blockish Jeffersonian states, the jurisdiction problems
<br />will be a nightmare. The chances of mutual antago-
<br />nism, greed, misunderstanding, unequal distribution
<br />of the water are huge, and so a watershed common-
<br />wealth will solve the problem of interstate rivalry for
<br />water courses in the American West.
<br />We should, therefore, simply abandon Mr.
<br />Jefferson's view that a square state is a beautiful state.
<br />Mr. Jefferson's view that you impose a matrix of
<br />enlightenment order on a landscape irrespective of its
<br />actual contours, that makes no sense beyond the
<br />100th meridian and we should adopt a topographic
<br />grid and a watershed commonwealth system instead.
<br />I further am no friend to fences. I would cluster
<br />our farms so that we create little communities, all the
<br />houses in a central zone and then radiating out
<br />towards commons, where the cattle would be grazed
<br />in common. Each year the community would
<br />separate the branded cattle. But I think fences are a
<br />mistake in a land where drought is so prevalent.
<br />And finally, with respect to this Arid Lands
<br />Report, let me say that I appended to it two sample
<br />pieces of legislation. One to create self-governing
<br />grazing districts in the West and one to create self-
<br />governing irrigation districts.
<br />That leads me to my final significant point. If you
<br />have ever studied the histoty of irrigation, in Iraq, in
<br />Egypt, in other places on earth, you know rhat
<br />irrigation invites despotism. Every farmer who can
<br />divert the little stream to create a garden plot will do
<br />so and that's not really at issue here. What happens
<br />when the upper courses of the rivers have been
<br />diverted and now we begin to face diversions of rivers
<br />downstream?
<br />In my study of the history of irrigation, it seems to
<br />me this can only be done in three ways. Number one
<br />is corporate monopoly. If you grant to a corporation,
<br />a monopoly over a river's resources, it can produce
<br />dams and irrigation canals and so on. This, I think, is
<br />a bad idea. Monopoly is always a bad idea in a free
<br />society and that is not the route that I would take.
<br />The second route is government gigantism. The
<br />government will take on this role and do it, in a
<br />sense, on behalf of the people. I don't like this idea
<br />any more than I like corporate gigantism. It seems to
<br />me that when you have big government, a far away
<br />government, reclaiming the land, the chances of local
<br />corruption will be high and you cannot count on that
<br />government to have a steadiness with respect to those
<br />
<br />sold, without water
<br />
<br />reclamation projects. They may favor it in the year
<br />1870 and they may change their mind in the year
<br />1880, and then the farmers are left high and dry.
<br />It seems to me that the third alternative is the only
<br />legitimate one, that we create local cooperatives of the
<br />people who actually live on the land and they will -
<br />with some government help in engineering and in
<br />financing - more or less by themselves create the
<br />water districts, the plan, the irrigation system. In fact,
<br />in an article in Scribners magazine about this, I said,
<br />"We have a great and powerful government. Shall it
<br />undertake this great
<br />effort? No. I say to the
<br />government, hands off.
<br />Furnish the people with
<br />institutions of justice and
<br />let them take on this great
<br />challenge themselves." In
<br />other words, the national
<br />government should be a
<br />referee to ensure that this
<br />is done equitably and
<br />reasonably and intelli-
<br />gently and without
<br />corruption, but it should
<br />have no other significant
<br />role in the diversion of
<br />
<br />
<br />I believe that no
<br />
<br />parcel of the
<br />
<br />American West
<br />
<br />should ever be
<br />
<br />alienated, ever be
<br />
<br />rights inherent in
<br />
<br />the title.
<br />
<br />our western waters.
<br />Now, let me tell you
<br />that this was not a popular view. I did not prevail in
<br />this arid lands proposal. In fact, for about 10 years, I
<br />was the water czar of the United States. It wasn't
<br />called that in my time but I had this power and I
<br />tried to hold up any allotment of the public domain
<br />until we had classified the lands. If you allow pell
<br />mell development in homesteading before you have
<br />classified western lands, then you know what will
<br />happen, the cleverest and the greediest will find the
<br />places where dams are likely to be built and irrigation
<br />systems are likely to be created and they will purchase
<br />those lands and then they will become confiscatory in
<br />their negotiations with communities and with
<br />government. And so you must pre-classify these lands
<br />and automatically take certain portions out of the
<br />public domain so they can never be monopolized by
<br />corporations or individuals. Therefore, I wanted a 10-
<br />year period in which we would classify all of the lands
<br />of the American West, determine dam sites and
<br />irrigation sites, and only then begin to allot that part
<br />of the public domain which could be useful for
<br />family agriculture.
<br />The boosters would not permit this. Sen. Stewart
<br />of Nevada was so angry at this plan that he held up
<br />appropriations for my U.S. Geological Survey and it
<br />became clear that as long as I remained as the head of
<br />
<br />
<br />REFLECTIONS
<br />OF AN
<br />ADVENTURER
<br />ANDA
<br />VISIONARY
<br />
<br />SYMPOSIUM
<br />PROCEEDINGS
<br />SEPTEMBER 1999
<br />
<br />o
<br />
|