OCR Text |
Show -100- page 11+; and lines 6 and 7» page 16 be stricken. These words appear to be unnecessary and not strictly in keeping with the constitutional provisi6ns relating to the making of interstate compacts. That provision speaks only of consent by Congress, not' consent and approval (Constitution art. I, sec. 10, clause 3)» That provision, it is noted, seems to have been in the" minds -of the .-Compact Commissioners in drafting the compact, for article XI dealing with-the Federal legislation speaks only of consent by the Congress, Thirdly, it is suggested that the prefacing language in section 2 (a) of the bill (lines 17, 18, and 19* page li+) might be rephrased as follows: !tIn order that the conditions stated in article XI of the compact here- by consented to shall be met and that the compact shall be and continue to be operative, the following provisions are enacted * * *.TJ Finally, for consistency between the bill and the compact, it is sug- gestod that the initial letter of the word "basin" be capitalized where it appears in lines ]+> 7/ 8*' a&d 11 of page 15 and in line '8 of*'page l6. UTone of the foregoing four suggestions are matters of substance so far as the bill is concerned, and they do not affect the compact in any par- ticular. They are made only in the interest of greater olarity and'accuracy in the statement of the bill and its title. This department has considerable interest in the Republican River Basin and in the problems presented in connection with the full development of its water resources. For that reason, I take this occasion to review some of* the history of the efforts of the States of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska to negotiate a compact and to make clear the attitude of this de- partment with respect to past efforts and the compact now under consider- ation. Many Western States have come to a'realization that difficult inter- state water problems can be solved more satisfactorily through compacts, than by protracted and expensive litigation. These States have also taken the position, in recent years, in the case of'streams which may be the subject of Federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause of the Consti- tution, that it is necessary, in addition to compacting among themselves, that' they'should know how water projects dependent on .rights established under Siiate law would be* affected by the exercise of that Federal juris- diction* Their position, as I understand it, is this* .11; is not feasible for them or those acting under their laws to undertake costly, irrigation and related projects in interstate streams as to which the Federal Govern- ment may have such jurisdiction, unless there is reasonable assurance at the time such' projects are undertaken that the water rights required there- for will be given consideration by the Federal Government in the event the latter should subsequently exercise its jurisdiction in a manner .that would encroach on those water rights. Many of these States happen a^so to em- brace ar-able though arid lands comprising t he drainage basins of streams which are tributary to navigable rivers .coursing through more humid r eg ions of the KFation. These States are concerned lest the undertaking of projects on the,. aava,gable reaches, of such rivers prevent the fullest economic use of the waters arising within their boundaries in the development of these |