| OCR Text |
Show SNAKE RIVER COMPACT 309 should not be effective until ratified by the legislatures of the States and "approved" by the Congress and that "nothing in this Act shall apply to any waters within the Yellowstone National Park or Grand Teton National Park or shall establish any right or interest in or to any lands within the boundaries thereof or in subsequent additions thereto." State ratifications.-Idaho, Act of February 11, 1950 (Sess. L. 1950, p. 4; Idaho Code 1947, sec. 42-3401). Wyoming, Act of February 20,1950 (Sess. L. 1950, p. 3; 1945 Wyo. Stat. 1957, sec. 41.509). Congressional consent to compact.-The "consent and approval" of the Congress was given the Snake River Compact by the Act of March 21, 1950 (64 Stat. 29), from which the text of the compact above set out is taken. Section 2 of this Act "expressly reserved" the "right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act." For legislative history, see S. 3159, 81st Congress; House Report 1743 (Committee on Public Lands), 81st Congress; 96 Cong. Rec. 2573-2575,3063-3065 (1950); P.L. 464,81st Congress. Presidential and Budget Bureau comments on compact.-In connec- tion with the negotiation of the Yellowstone River compact, pp. 36Iff post, the President expressed his views on certain provisions of the Snake River compact in a letter to the Federal representative dated May 3,1950, to which was attached a memorandum from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget dated April 21,1950. The two documents read as follows: "May 3, 1950 "My Dear Mr. Newell : The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a problem of growing concern and, in the solution of which, the Federal Representatives assigned to interstate water com- pact commissions are in a position to perform a valuable public serv- ice. I refer to the somewhat recent tendency to incorporate in inter- state water compacts questionable or conflicting provisions imposing restrictions on use of waters by the United States, such as appear in the Snake River Compact enactment which I approved on March 21, 1950 (Public Law 464,81st Congress, 2nd Session). "In this particular case, the possibility of misinterpretation of cer- tain apparently conflicting provisions was not considered to be serious enough to warrant withholding approval of the enrolled enactment of the Congressi (S. 3159). Such provisions, however, if followed as precedent for general application, may jeopardize the prospect of consent and approval of compacts by the Federal Government be- cause of the far reaching effects such provisions might have upon the interests of the United States. This matter is further discussed in a memorandum to me from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a copy of which is enclosed for your information and guidance. "I fully realize how difficult it is to resolve the numerous complex jurisdictional and other problems encountered in reaching agree- ment up'on the allocation of the waters of an interstate stream. At the same time, I am impressed with the importance of insuring that compact provisions reflect as clearly as possible a recognition of the respective responsibilities and prerogatives of the United States, and the affected States. I can assure you that any efforts made by you and |
