OCR Text |
Show "United States of America, in Congress assembled* that the consent of the Congress of the United States is hereby given to each of the several states of the Union to enter into any agreement or compact, not in con- flict with any law of the United States, with any other state or states* for the purpose of conserving the forests and water supply of the states entering into such agreement or compact.n Likewise, the Omnibus Flood Control Act of 1936 authoriz3d the States to en- ter into compacts under certain conditions. At times the Supreme Court of the United States has recommended solution of interstate problems by means of interstate treaties or compacts. However, comparatively few of the States have availed themselves of this very effective method for the settlement of their differences with respect to the waters of an interstate stream. A sur- vey of all of the forty-eight States discloses that those which have no com- pacts or interstate agreements concerning the waters of an interstate stream system, nor litigation over such waters, are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Gerogia, Iowa* Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, and Rhode Island. In all the other thirty-nine States, there has been litigation between one or more States. According to the report of the National Resources Committee of December 1935j fifty-seven interstate compacts have been authorixed, of which thirty four have finally become effective through State ratification* In addition, thirteen compacts have been authorized by one or more States without con- gressional authority or approval. The large number of these compacts, how- ever, had to do with such matters as State boundaries, cessions of territory, jurisdiction 07er boundary waters, uniformity of legislation, interstate accounting, utility regulation, and prevention of crime. Of the forty-four compacts to which Congress has given its approval sinoe 1900, thirty have been effected within the period since 1918. In this connection, the Federal Government has not been content with a constitutional role of passive approbation, as disclosed by the Weeks Act. Congress may take the role of stimulator of interstate compacts in a particular field by a general authorization for the States to enter into such agreements, but even in the case of more specific authorization (as in the statute for the apportionment of the waters of the Columbia River between Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana) Congress has established the principle of Federal par- ticipation in the negotiations. There has been no State action as yet (1939) under tine provisions of the Weeks Act, and apparently Congress has been will- ing to approve in advance* and without serious. delay, the negotiation of compacts relating to a particular question or region. As heretofore stated* it appears that the participation by Congress may precede or follow the stage of negotiations. There are examples of both types of procedure. Some students of the compact method, as a device for the adjustment of disputes over interstate streams, have declared what they conceive as un- certainties associated with its use as a means for securing State coopera- tion in the development of streams, in view of the existing conflicts of law, among the States, relating to water rights. These uncertainties, they contend, are increased because of the fact that there is no clear line that determines the ultimate application of Federal authority over navigable -112- |