Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001406 <br /> <br />Although the evidence is not completely uniforml05, it <br />appears that on balance the Upper Basin should not bear the <br />risk according to section 154's criteria. Subsequent oral <br />testimony is inadmissible, but "recourse may be had to the <br />negotiations, preparatory works, and diplomatic correspon- <br />dence of the contracting parties" to establish the meaning of <br />an ambiguous compact, Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, <br />359-60 (1934). See also Air France v. Saks, U.S. ___, <br />105 S. ct. 1338, 1341 (1985). In order to appreciate this <br />conclusion as to the burden of risk, it is necessary to <br />examine the official Record of the Compact negotiations in <br />some detail. <br />Twenty-seven negotiating sessions'- -occurred .uThEf-~:f'-lr-s:ti:---~-_::-~:c~~:=-2=_ <br />seven were conducted in Washington in January, 1922. The <br />Commissioners reached an impasse and decided to try to <br />compose their differences by taking to the road. Hearings <br />were held in each of the seven Basin states, and after <br />further delays the Commission re-convened at Bishop's Lodge <br />near Santa Fe on November 9. The Lodge's bridal suite was <br />selected as the space for the negotiations, although the <br />ensuing activities therein little resembled a honeymoon only <br />in the coarsest sense. It is probably fairer to say that the <br />negotiations assumed the characteristics of the River <br />itself: swift and direct at points; tortuous and meandering <br />at others; often turbulent, dangerous and unpredictable. The <br />Compact was nonetheless signed on November 24. <br /> <br />-41- <br />