Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(ju1826 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />hatch that is less remote and total than an exercise <br />bv Congress of what I assume to oe its Dower to with- <br />draw its consent from the document. tly - <br /> <br />Repeal of the Colorado River Compact by Congress, assuming <br /> <br />that can be done, is perhaps the most remote possibility. More <br /> <br />immediate are federal powers which the United States argues can <br /> <br />be exercised without federal legislation. The one that most <br /> <br />concerns us, of course, is the power of the Secretary of the <br /> <br />Interior to dilute by new contracts water rights established <br /> <br />by appropriation for three quarters of a century and by con- <br /> <br />tracts written 25 years ago under the Boulder Canyon Project <br /> <br />Act. That threat, however, is only illustrative. <br /> <br />1/ T. Richard Witmer, Interstate and International Water <br />comracts, reprinted at l29 of Proceedings of the First Inter- <br />soc ety Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, San Francisco, <br />1957. Quotation in text is from page 132. Mr. Witmer collects <br />in a footnote examples of compacts in which congressional consent <br />purports to reserve a right to alter, amend, or repeal the con- <br />sent statute. <br /> <br />38. <br />