OCR Text |
Show -111- without the limitations imposed by article XI, would fully protect the sovereignty, rights, and interests of the United States and appear to satisfy the President's requirement that the legislation specifically re- serve to the United States wall of the rights and responsibilities which it now has in the use and control of the -waters of the basin." Article XI of the compact, however, appears not merely to go unneces- ' sarily beyond the provisions of the congressional consent but also to under- mine the broad provisions of article X by restricting substantially the rights and interests of the Federal Government. This article would seem also to be objectionable from a legislative standpoint in that it en- croaches upon the field of Federal legislative authority and seeks to dictate to Congress precise provisions upon which it is required to give approval* Moreover, the language of paragraph (b) of article XI not only in- hibits the United States from freely pursuing its jurisdictional powers but is confusing as to the method to be pursued in making a determination. There is left in doubt not only the matter of procedure but the extent of the influence that any objection may have upon the Federal authority. Paragraph (c) of such article leaves open vital questions concerning impairment, determination of beneficial use and validity of action under the State law, and appears to open up the probability of years of litigation which would no doubt interfere with any program of the Congress for the de- velopment of the whole region and the fuller utilization of the waters of the basin. Furthermore, the enactment of S. 6I4.9 in the form proposed would be con- trary to the past action of Congress with respect to similar legislation. Heretofore Congress invariably has inserted in legislation ratifying com- pacts a provision that nothing in the pompact should be deemed to impair or in any manner affect any right or jurisdiction of the United States* In this regard your attention is directed to the following: Interstate Sanitation District; Tri-State Compact (i+9 Stat. 932., 95^# August 27, 1935; Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (1+9 Stat. 1051* IO58, August 30, 1935); Ri° Grande Compact (53 Stat. 785, 792, May 31, 1939); Ohio River Drainage Basin Compact (5k Stat, 752, 756, July 11, I9I4O); Potomac Valley Conservancy District (5I4. Stat. 7I4B, 751, July 11, I9I4.O). This commission would favor approval of a compact limited to the pro- visions contained in the first 10 articles of the proposed compact whicii would then be in substantial conformity with the clear intent of Congress, as expressed in the consenting legislation, as well as the views of the President, as set forth in his veto message? Such a compact would unquestionably provide for "an equitable division and allocation among the said States of the waters of the Republican Ri'ver" and afford a sound basis for the full development of the river basin, in conformity with the laws of the signatory States applying the use of the waters for domestic and irrigation purposes. |