OCR Text |
Show 236 INTERSTATE COMPACTS Pennsylvania, Act of April 2, 1945 (Laws 1945, p. 103; Purdon's Pa. Stat. Ann. 1949, Tit. 32, sec. 816.1) .2 Tennessee, Act of February 18,1949 (Pub. Acts 1949, p. 122; Tenn. Code Ann. 1956, sec. 70-401) .8 Virginia, Act of March 5, 1948 (Acts 1948, p. 276; Va. Code 1950, sec. 62-67.1). West Virginia, Act of March 11, 1939 (Acts 1939, p. 208; W. Va. Code 1961, sec. 2777 (15)) .4 Congressional consent to compact.-The Congress' "consent and ap- proval" was given to the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Com- pact by the Act of July 11% 1940 (54 Stat. 752). By section 2 of this Act, the Congress also gave its consent to "the State of Virginia or any other State with waters in the Ohio River drainage basin entering into said compact as a signatory State and party * * *." Section 4 of the Act provided that nothing contained in it or in the compact "shall be construed as impairing or affecting the sovereignty of the United States or any of its rights or jurisdiction in and over the area or waters which are the subject of such compact." "The right to alter, amend, or repeal" the provisions of section 1 of the Act, by which Congress' consent was given, was "expressly reserved" by section 5. For legislative history, see S. 3617 and H.R. 9775, 76th Congress; Senate Report 1711 (Committee on Commerce) and House Report 2653 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors), 76th Congress; 86 Cong. Rec. 7102-7104, 9128-9129, 9209 (1940) ; P.L. 739, 76th Congress. Litigation.-In West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. /Sims, 341 U.S. 22 (1951), the Supreme Count reversed the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 134 W. Va. 278, 58 S. E. (2d) 766 (1950), which had held that that State's adherence to the Ohio River Valley "Water Sanitation Compact was invalid in that, as the Supreme Court summarized the West Virginia court's holdings, "(1) the Compact was deemed to delegate West Virginia's police power to other States and to the Federal Government, and (2) it was deemed to bind future legislatures to make appropriations for the continued activities of the Sanitation Commission and thus to violate Art. X, § 4 of the West Virginia Con- stitution." The Supreme Court held, with respect to the first of these questions, that there was nothing in the State Constitution "to indicate that West Virgina may not solve a problem such as the control of river pollution by compact and by the delegation, if such it be, necessary to effectuate such solution by compact" (p. 31). It found, with respect to the second, that "The Compact was evidently drawn with great care to meet the problem of debt limitation" provisions found in the West Virginia and other State constitutions and held that the obliga- tion of the State under the compact was not in conflict therewith (p. 33). a Condiiitionied on ratification by New York, Ohio, and West Virginia. 3 Conditioned on ratification byi Alabama and North Carolina. By section 3 of the act cited,, the Governor was "authorized and empowered * * * to determine if and when it shall be for the best interest of the State of ITennessee to withdraw from said Compact if permitted by its terms" and. to act accordingly. * Conditioned on ratification by New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. |