Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 7/26/2007 <br />federal - interstate compacts, such as the Delaware River Basin Compact, are the <br />most effective approach. <br /> <br />Grant, D. L. 2003. Interstate water allocation compacts: When the virtue of permanence <br />becomes the vice of inflexibility . University of Colorado Law Review, 74: 105. <br />This article argues that the permanence provided by compacts is not m utually <br />exclusive with flexibility. It seeks to show that the development - era virtue of <br />permanence in interstate water allocation need not become the vice of inflexibility <br />in a time of changing water needs. The heart of the paper examines the sources of <br />interstate compact permanency and extends a theory by which compacts can be <br />terminated or renegotiated. This article is relevant to the interbasin compact idea <br />because it examines how permanence and flexibility can be balanced in a <br />negotiated compact proc ess. <br /> <br />Clemons, J. 2004. Interstate water disputes: a road map for states . Southeastern <br />Environmental Law Journal. 12: 115. <br />This paper looks at three methods of solving interstate water allocation problems: <br />equitable apportionment by the Supreme Court, appo rtionment by Congress, and <br />apportionment by interstate compact. It examines the Apalachicola - <br />Chattahoochee - Flint River Basin Compact in order to highlight the strengths and <br />weaknesses of the compact mechanism. The paper also suggests what states can <br />do t o realize successful compact negotiations. <br /> <br />Hasday, J. E. 1997. Interstate compacts in a democratic society: The problem of <br />permanency . Florida Law Review. 49: 1. <br />This article examines the democratic implications of interstate compacts. It <br />argues that com pacting raises serious democratic concerns because is an <br />exception to the rule that one legislature may not restrict its successors. Although <br />the virtues of compacts are outlined, the article argues that compacts should only <br />be used when their advantages are most compelling. It goes on to suggest that the <br />compact agreement should be drafted to mitigate democratic concerns. <br /> <br />Dinar, S. and A. Dinar. 2003. Recent Developments in the Literature on Conflict <br />Negotiation and Cooperation over Shared International Fresh Waters . Natural Resource <br />Journal, 43: 1217. <br />This article reviews over 80 books on international conflict and cooperation <br />regarding fresh water. The review of the literature is placed in the context of <br />specific disciplines instrumental to this resea rch field. <br /> <br />Sherk, G. W. 2000. Dividing the Waters: The Resolution of Interstate Water Conflicts in <br />the United States . Kluwer Law International, The Hague, The Netherlands. 999pp. <br />This book contains a comprehensive study of the resolution of inter - state wa ter <br />conflicts in the United States. It gives a thumbnail sketch of important litigation, <br />legislation, and interstate compact resolutions. The first six chapters (copied and <br />contained in our library) analyze and discuss the interrelationships between the <br />“litigation options”, the “legislative option”, and the “compact option”. The <br />4 <br />