| OCR Text |
Show sies. Litigation over water leads to confusion* delays and large expendi- tures of public funds. Too often a judicial decree has proven to be un- workable and conducive to further litigation. Judicial processes are too fixed to meet changing social and economic issues in a given region made up of a number of states. The court decree when once rendered is not an effective means of supervising conflicting interests whioh arise under de- sirable development of the water resource. Furthermore, it is obvious that the judicial process cannot envision a future development program and pro- vide by declaratory judgment equitable apportionment of unused waters. ij,. Finally* we list here the compact method which is the subject of this paper. This technique is effectuated through interstate conference. In most cases collaboration with federal interests is desirable. The val- idity and binding effect of interstate water compacts are sustained in the case of M* C. Hinderlider, as State Engineer, et al. * Appellants, v. The La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (302 Ut Si 6I46) decided by the Supreme Gourt of the United States in 1937* This case involved a compact between Colorado and New Mexico on the La Plata River. It should be noted that two water compacts in the West involved inter- national relations with a sister Republic. Allowance for the interests of Mexico was necessary in the Colorado River and Rio Grande compacts. When the Colorado River Compact was negotiated Mexico^ interest in that river was undetermined. Such determination remains to be made. But in allocat- ing Colorado River water, future treaty provisions between the two coun- tries were taken into consideration. The Rio Grande Compact made provision for meeting the obligation of the United States to make delivery of water to Mexico under an existing treaty. The basic compact procedure should here be briefly reviewed. Section 10 (2) of Article I of the Federal Constitution provides thatt f!No state shall, without the consent of Congress, * * * * enter into any agreement or compact with another state ?***." This has been construed to mean that the Constitution authorizes a state to "enter into any agreement or compact with another stateu with "the consent of congress." This authority is negatively put in order to express the limitation imposed upon its exer- cise. A compact in order to be binding upon the signatory states must be ratified by their respective legislatures. In practice a compact is nego- tiated by commissioners appointed by the governors of the participating states under a special law authorizing such appointments for particular negotiations or under general statutory provisions. A negotiated compact signed by these commissioners is then submitted to the legislatures of the signatory states for ratification* In the past two different procedures for obtaining Congressional con- sent have been recognized. Under one an Act is passed by Congress grant- ing its consent to the making of a compact. This is followed by the com- pact negotiation, ratification by the legislature of the signatory states and final submission of the compact to Congress for approval. Under the other procedure, the compact is negotiated and ratified by the states -61- |
