| OCR Text |
Show HUNGRY HORSE PREDICTION 13 House Interior Committee for its consideration, Cali- fornia's Rep. Norris Poulson pointed out that "the legal definition of beneficial consumptive use must still be made by the courts." He protested that inclusion of the Arizona theory was not only unfair to California and Nevada, but placed Congress in the position of interpreting a legal question. All that was needed to win California's support for the compact was an amend- ment declaring that the United States "is not, by con- senting to this compact, committing itself to any inter- pretations, expressed or implied, of the main Colorado River Compact." 6 Poulson got the amendment, and at Senator Know- land's request similar protective language was approved by the Senate.7 Rep. Engle of California nailed the lid down tighter by asking Harry W. Bashore, who had represented the Federal Government during the Upper Basin Compact negotiations: 8 "Will the ratification by the several states, and the approval by the Congress, of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact in any way amend or affect the meaning of the Colorado River Compact, whatever that document may mean?" Bashore took Engle's question before the Upper Basin Compact negotiators, and they replied in a letter to Engle, signed by all of them, that their compact did not "alter, amend, modify or repeal the Boulder Canyon Project Act (Hoover Dam) or the Colorado River Com- pact . . . the Upper Basin Compact is binding only upon the states which are signatory thereto and does not impair any rights of any state not signatory thereto . . . the Upper Basin Compact is subject, in all respects, to the provisions and limitations con- tained in the Colorado River Compact." 9 |
