OCR Text |
Show legislature of Idaho in 1933, and later by the Lower HouSe of the Legisla- ture of Wyoming; but it failed to be approved in the Senate of that State, and later was withdrawn by its sponsors* Authorization was given to these States by Congress,70 and approved by. the President May 16* 1938* to negotiate a new compact not later than January 1* 19i+0. Comnissi oners have not been appointed to date (1939)» Compact for Flood Control in the Connecticut and Merrimao River Basins. Pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1936* establishing a national policy with respeot to flood control throughout the United States, the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire nego- tiated a Compact for the control of flood waters in the Connecticut River Basin, and the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, negotiated a Compact for the control of floods in the Merrimac River Basin. Under the provisions of the Omnibus Flood Control Act of 193&» ^e Connecticut River Compact; contemplates the construction, over a period of years, of a series of flood-control reservoirs upon tributaries of the Connecticut. River.to control approximately 21$ of the drainage area. Of these* two could be con- structed in Massachusetts, three in Vermont, and three in New Hampshire, at specified sites. The Compact provides for the creation of the Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Commission, consisting of twelve Commissioners, three to be chosen from each State. It. is understood that the four States involved have made appropriations of funds required by the Compact for the States* obligations. Furthermore, the Compact had a favorable report by the Senate Committee on Commerce, by the United States Senate and by the Flood Control Committee of the House; but thus far (1939) it has failed to receive the approval of the Congress. Opposition to the approval of these Compacts by the Congress is reported to have arisen from the Federal Power Commission, on the grounds that the Compact violates the long-established policy of the Federal Government regarding the development of hydro-elec- tric energy, and that the Attorney-General of the United States has taken the position that the Compact was defective in that.it did not provide for the transfer of title to the Federal Government of all lands and easements purchasad'by the States for flood-control purposes. Th© position of the Federal Power Commission has been expressed71 by its general counsel, Oswald Ryan, who states that the Commission's position can be properly evaluated only when examined in the light of the legal ques- tions, which the Compacts have raised. In this connection, Mr. Ryan states that the purpose of his paper71 "is to discuss not the questions of policy, but the questions of law which must inevitably be. faced in considering not only the Connecticut and Merrimac Compacts, but all other flood control compacts which may hereafter be proposed in connection with the program of flood control, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1936." The position of the a-ttorney for the Federal Power Commission has been resisted strenu- ously by the Governors and Attorney-Generals, of the compacting States. 7°Public Resolution No. 9l|, J^th Congress, 3**<* Session; also House Joint Resolution No. 150. ' 71Public Utilities Fortnightly, January 20, 1938. -122- |