My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05764
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05764
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:47 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:15:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
2100
Description
Laws-Acts-Policy Rulings Affecting CWCB and Colorado Water - Federal
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/4/1921
Author
Delph E Carpenter
Title
Statement of Delph E Carpenter - 06-04-21 - Before the Committee on the Judiciary - House of Representatives - RE-HR 6821
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />JJJ1J5 <br /> <br />-ll;- <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />NR. UTES. What I am driving at is thisl It has never been found <br />neoessary.. has it. to JlI9.ke an apportionment of the waters of other <br />rivers. suoh as the Mississippi. the Hissouri. etc.. between the States. <br />by agreement? <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />MR. CARPENTER. No; for the reason that in the oase of other rivers <br />the waters hsve not been clevoted to irrigation purposes to a degree <br />sufficient to hsve any JlI9.terial effeot upon them. And, secondly, the un- <br />fortune.te part of the whole problem has been that the States that felt <br />aggrieved. instead of using the peaoeful method of dip1anacy which this <br />bill provides, have plunged into court by interstate suits, and there <br />hove been several of those affecting western rivers. <br /> <br />Those suits have invariably up to date been very disappointing, as <br />they hsve been in the oase of eastern rivers - for example. the St.Louis <br />controversy as to sewage, resulting in the case of Missouri v, Illinois. <br />and a New York case recently divided, involving a controversy between <br />New York and New Jersey. <br /> <br />MR. BOI~S. We recently reported out a bill confirming an agreement <br />of two New England States as to the settlement of their boundaries. <br /> <br />MR. CARPENTER. Yes, sir. <br /> <br />MR. YITES. But thst was a boundrry matter? <br /> <br />MR. BOIES. Yes. <br /> <br />MR. CtRPENTER. Yes. I will say, . as a. matter of history. thst in- <br />ternational comp1ioations respecting rivers have been universally settled <br />by treaty; and this compact between the States is in every degree analo- <br />gous to a treaty between netions. <br /> <br />MR. GOODYKOONTZ. In your absence, Governor Yates, the witness <br />pointed out the fact thst under the Constitution the Stotes are forbidden <br />to enter into a compact, except by consent of the Congress. <br /> <br />MR. CARP&~T~R. In other words. to put it in a different manner, <br />this bill contemplates the applic.otion of the international rule of peace- <br />able settlement of river controversies by treaty. in the form here of a <br />compact between the State s. <br /> <br />MR. I1ICHEIJ3R. As a legal proposition you pre satisfied that that <br />can be done? <br /> <br />MR. CARPENTER. Yes; indeed. In fact. I mil!: t state further that <br />having been upon three of those interstate water suits. I am convinced <br />that it is wild folly to enter into litigation until this method has been <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.