Laserfiche WebLink
18 <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> D <br /> Judge Stone, as you know, participated in the first -, <br /> Republican River Compact which went on the rooks because of <br /> inacoeptable language. In the second Republican River corn-. 0 <br /> pact the paramountcy clause caused considerable objection <br /> 0 <br /> and difficulty. It was battled in congressional committees <br /> and finally was resolved in favor of the compact and ulti- U) <br /> mately in approval of the law by the president. The Presto. <br /> dent at that time, however, recognized that that approval <br /> should not constitute a precedent. Judge Stone pointed out <br /> that that battle has really been fought upon new grounds and <br /> legislation has subsequently been enaoted in general flood <br /> control and river and harbor acts, and he felt and advised <br /> that it would be desirable to forego the enunciation of <br /> the paramountcy clause in the words of previous compacts and <br /> rely on the new legislation. Judge Stone advised that, both <br /> from a legal viewpoint and from a strategic viewpoint. Of <br /> course, this Commission is not bound by Judge Stoney s views, <br /> but they are certainly deserving of great weight, and I an <br /> glad the Legal Committee has recognized his judgment. <br /> Now, the articles the Committee has presented, which <br /> I had no opportunity to stud3y, at first glance, at least, <br /> appear to me--and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong <br /> --to be a restatement exactly of Articles X and XI in the <br /> existing Republican River Compact, except that the contro- <br /> versial phraseology in Subsection (b) of Article XI where the <br />