WSPC03997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OOQ{17 -17- of local autonomy which is inherent in the Federal union of- states. There have been these attempts for centralized Federal control of water (sometimes referred to as bureaucratic-control trends); and there are evidences, now and then, of officials vnthin the Government asserting unwarranted attacks on the rights and interests of the states. Some have even contended that in this day the states have lost their usefulness. For these reasons, there is need, of course, for an attitude of alertness on the part of our people. But on the basis of the record of enactments of the Congress, decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the usual and accepted practices of Federal agencies now engaged in water activities and the prevailing public attitude, I do not believe that there is any merit in the claim, often made these days, of an alarming trend toward bureaucratic or centralized control. Abortive efforts in this direction cannot be construed as trends sanctioned by the people and the law. Undoubtedly, the situation in t}us respect attracts more public attention, as it should, in a day when the final pattern of de- velopment is taking shape in many river basins, but progress in keeping vnth Federal and state rights and interests is being made. The formulation of basic water policy, procedure, and plans and programs for integrated basin-wide development, vrith all of the attending economic and social phases of the matter, is an evolving process. It has been so in the past. It cannot be expected to spring fully developed at any given time, even as to important aspects, from the minds of any group of men. It is appropriate, however, in the study and gradual formulation of such policies and clans to consider the part which interstate compacts may play. An interstate water compact is designed to remove present and future causes of controversy and amicably adjust differences among states with the