|
<br />0008G9
<br />
<br />.1968
<br />
<br />CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
<br />
<br />-.
<br />
<br />22125
<br />
<br />Mr. AIKEN. Is there not some provi.
<br />slon In the bill by which States In a
<br />river liystem could organize a. commls...
<br />slon BIld bring other States Into the
<br />same system, states which perhaps did
<br />not care to come Into the commission?
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. They could not be
<br />dragged In.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. They could not be
<br />dragged in?
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. That Is correct.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. I reter to page 21 of the
<br />bill, section 303:
<br />The Council shall approve any program for
<br />comprehensive water and related land re~
<br />source. planning which 18 submitted by a
<br />State, it such program-
<br />Does that language mean that one
<br />State could submit a program which
<br />might atrect a river system which ex...
<br />tends Into other States. and would the
<br />caunell then be required to approve the
<br />program submitted by that one State. so
<br />long as the program met the certain cri-
<br />teria estabUshed by the council?
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. This provision is
<br />attend a conference on the foreign aid only for the purpose of putting up par-
<br />bUl. tlclpatlng money for States to plan for"
<br />On page 18, under titJe 2, section 207 . waters In their own State. or Interstate
<br />(a) provides: "waters Insofar as they affect their State.
<br />Each commission shall determine the pro- Another State could not step In Bnd ~ay
<br />portlonate share of Ita expense whlcb shall that the State of Vermont must accept
<br />be borne by the Pederal Government and a project they have planned. Each State
<br />each of tbe Btates. has to stay within its own limits. The
<br />It appears from the way the bUlls wrlt- oouncll could step In, but not individual
<br />ten that Bome States could bring other States.
<br />States Into a commission setup, whether Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator
<br />the other States wanted to come into the from New Mexico for his assurances re-
<br />arrangement or not. I want to make garding limitations on the authority of
<br />certain that the commission could not certain States to assess other States.
<br />assess a State If the leglslature of that Mr. ALLOT!". Before the Senator
<br />State was opposed to such action. from Vermont thanks the Senator from
<br />I recall that a few years ago the West New Mexico too much, and goes to his
<br />VIrgInia Legislature decUned to make an committee meeting, I should say to him
<br />appropriation for some works In the that I have been very much concerned
<br />lower Ohio Valley of which the State did about the operation of secUon 207.
<br />not approve." The Supreme Court de- U it Is made very clear" that the state.
<br />c1ded that West Virginia was liable for ment of the Senator from New Mexico
<br />the BSSessrnent made by the Ohto River is correct. the Senator from Vermont
<br />Compact commission. The dWerence in may be assured In h1B pOSition. But If
<br />that case was this: West Virginia had not, I should say that the language BB
<br />voluntarily Joined In the Compact Com.. written cannot be susceptible of any
<br />mission. ... other Interpretation than the one which
<br />But In the bill before us, Bre we say- the Senator from Vermont does not want.
<br />" tng-and I am thinking In terms of my I read from page 18, line 6:
<br />own State-that if four, or three, New BEC.207. (a) 'Each comm1Bsion ahaJl deter-
<br />England states decided that they wanted mine t.he proportionate share of its expenae
<br />to establish a commission. could they which S~ll be borne by the Federal Govern-
<br />then assess the State of Vermont for a ment and each of the States.
<br />part of the costs of that commission
<br />whether or not Vermont had voluntarily
<br />become a member?
<br />" Mr. ALLQ'IT. Mr. President, I ask
<br />unanimous consent that I may yield to
<br />"the dJstinguJshed Senator from New
<br />Mexico, the author of the bill, without
<br />losing my right to the floor, because I
<br />belleve he can best express the Intent of
<br />the bill.
<br />The PRESIDING OFFICER. WIthout
<br />objection. It Is 50 ordered.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. I assure the Sen-
<br />ator from Vermont that the State of Ver..
<br />mont could not be assesSed. If foUr New
<br />England states should. form. such an or..
<br />ganlzatlon. there would be no power
<br />whatever to make the State of Vermont.
<br />under this provlaloD, pay a port.lcm of
<br />the expense. .
<br />
<br />Mr. AIKEN. And there Is 0.150 the
<br />West Virginia case.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; as the Senator
<br />from Vermont says, there Is also the
<br />West Virginia case.
<br />However, I have referred to the re-
<br />fusal of Delaware to pay, and I ha.ve
<br />said there is no way to force Delaware.
<br />I am very certain that Is correct. for over
<br />and over again the interpretation has
<br />been made In our discussions that that
<br />Is the way the situation would be. I
<br />would hope we would have suffIcient leg-
<br />islative history, by means of this ex-
<br />change. in order to make sure that that
<br />Is the way it will be. A State cannot. be
<br />obligated for sums it does not agree to.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
<br />Mr. ALLO'IT. Then let me say to the
<br />Senator from New Mexico, and also to
<br />the Senator from Vermont, that it Is now
<br />agreed that the legJ,slatlve history of th.ts
<br />matter Is that section 207 could never
<br />constitute a legal basia for a claim
<br />against a state.
<br />Mr. " AIKEN. Or against the Federal
<br />Government.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. Well. agalnst some
<br />State, but not on the basis outUned.
<br />Mr. ALLOTI'. But the States thnt
<br />would be Included would only be included
<br />of their own volition.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON." However. unless a
<br />State came in of Its own accord, it could
<br />not be assessed. U a State comes In of
<br />Its own accord. It can be subject to an
<br />assessment.
<br />Mr. ALLO'IT. And If under this para-
<br />graph a State has come In of Its own
<br />volition, rather than by virtue of the
<br />fact that a majority of the States worked
<br />out such an arrangement and, as a result,
<br />the remaining States were brought In:lt
<br />would be subject to the BSSessment. In
<br />other words, a State whIch came In of Its
<br />"own voUtion would be subject to the as-
<br />sessment; but a State which did not come
<br />In of Its own voUUon could not be bound
<br />by such an assessment.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. I belleve the Sen.
<br />ator from Colorado said that If a State
<br />came In voluntarlly," It would be bound
<br />by the assessment.
<br />Mr. ALLO'IT. Yes. But It a State did
<br />not come in voluntarily, It would not be
<br />bound..
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. I agree with the
<br />Senator from Colorado, and I think the
<br />legislative history should" be clearly set
<br />forth at this poInt. .
<br />Mr. AIKEN. That Is the point .1
<br />wished to have brought out, because jn
<br />the case of West Virginia v. SImms, 95
<br />L.Ed. 713, West Virginia cBIlIe In
<br />voluntarily.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. . I think the two
<br />cases need to be examined simultane-
<br />ously. West Vlrglnla came In voluntar-
<br />Ily, and therefore has had to pay. Dela-
<br />ware dId not agree to Its assessment and
<br />therefore would not have to pay.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. West Virginia CBDle In
<br />under the compact.
<br />Mr. LAU8CHE. It Is the Ohio River
<br />Sanitation Compact.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. Probably the Senator
<br />from" Ohio was the Governor" of his
<br />,State at the time when this matter arose
<br />and' West Vlrwlnla refused to pay lte
<br />part. .. .
<br />
<br />p:u-t.1clpnUng States, & compreheWlI'Ye. COOT-
<br />dln:lted, Joint plnn, 01' any major portion or
<br />nc<:cssary revWoD.8 thereof. for water and
<br />related. land resourcea dnelopment In the
<br />region. river basin. or group of river baalns
<br />for wh1ch such Commlsston was est.abllahed.
<br />
<br />With these preUmlnary remarks, I
<br />have merely tried to lay the foundation
<br />for the broad, general program, which Is
<br />that because of our history. we are really
<br />deallng In an antiquated way with the
<br />problem of resources.
<br />I am sure that many persons would
<br />"desire an entirely d.ifferent approach
<br />. - than that provided In the bU!. If that
<br />were possible. I realize that It Is not pos-
<br />sible. So what I shan try to do. through
<br />the amendments wWch I shall afl'er, 18 to
<br />bring this proposal Into line and attempt
<br />to make the bill as compatible as possible
<br />with the Ideas and theories of the water
<br />rights laws that most Westem States'
<br />have.
<br />Mr. AIKEN. Mr~ President. will the
<br />Senator yield? There Is one matter I
<br />should like to have made clear before I
<br />
<br />I'
<br />
<br />'.(
<br />
<br />i;
<br />!r,
<br />..
<br />:':\
<br />
<br />.i. (
<br />',J
<br />
<br />.-'
<br />
<br />.
<br />\. .
<br />
<br />;..
<br />
<br />If we give the Commission the power"to
<br />determine the proportion of the expense
<br />to be borne by the "Federal Government
<br />and the proportion to be borne by each
<br />of the states, in the absence of a clear
<br />legislative record here that It Is not In-
<br />tended that this be a legal obligation, I
<br />submJt that probably It would be a legal"
<br />one.
<br />Mr. ANDERSON. Let me say to the
<br />able Senator from Colorado, who con-
<br />stantly shows us in the Committee on
<br />Interior and Insular Affairs that he Is a
<br />good lawy~r, that I am not trying to get
<br />Into an argument with him about the
<br />correct interpretation of law. But Dela-
<br />ware :18 a member of the larger compact,
<br />"and has refused to P81 all of its assess-
<br />ments. and -there ia no way to 'Collect the
<br />rest from Delaware."
<br />
<br />-:.1,
<br />
|