AZ vs. CA:24 California Exhibits, Vol. XXIV; Miscellaneous

page A92

A92 APPENDIX 210 as one of policy and settled by treaty with Mexico (21 Ops. Atty. Gen. 274, 280-283). It is safe to predict that most of the past controversies respecting the waters of western interstate streams could have been avoided had the matters in dispute been first submitted to competent compact commissioners. Friction between the Federal departments and the State authorities should be avoided by proper compacts between the States before construction proceeds upon rivers where such controversies may arise. The Colorado River is still "young," as regards utilization of its water supply. Conditions look to enormous development during the next quarter of a century. Nature facilitates an easy allocation and settlement of all matters pertaining to the future utilization of the waters of this stream, if means to that end are taken prior to further construction and before friction develops. All apprehension of interference with the gradual and necessary future development upon the upper reaches of the stream by reason of earlier construction of enormous works on the lower river may be avoided by compact and agreement entered into prior to any future construction. In fact, settlement of possible interstate controversies by interstate compacts is recommended by the United States Supreme Court (Washington v. Oregon, 214 U. S. 205, 218). COMPACT BY "JOINT COMMISSION" BETWEEN STATES AND UNITED STATES In another section we observe that the States, with consent of Congress, have full powers to make compacts with each other. Treaties between States are designated as agreements or compacts (Art. I, sec. 10, par. 3, Constitution). The United States, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, may enter into compacts or agreements with one or more of the States, acting in their sovereign capacities. The usual method of formulating such compacts or agreements, either between the States or between the States and the United States, is through the instrumentality of joint commissions thereunto duly constituted by legislative enactments and appointment by the executives of the State or the States and of the Nation. Such joint commissions are in all respects similar to the joint commissions constituted by separate Governments for formulation of treaties between independent nations. The term does not refer to a joint commission consisting only of members of one sovereignty and created by joint action of two or more legislative branches, but refers to that character of commission formed by two independent powers for the purpose of joint action to a common end. Of the available examples of settlements of controversies between the United States and one or more of the States through the instru-