Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 7/26/2007 <br />Interstate Compact Literature <br /> <br />Interstate Compact Process (Tyler) <br />? <br /> <br />The political and legal climate set the stage for successful compact negotiation. <br />? <br /> <br />The formal leader/leaders of the groups play a critical role. <br />? <br /> <br />Lasting compac ts take time. <br />? <br /> <br />There is a need for committed negotiators with an ability to visualize the future <br />and a spirit of trust. <br />? <br /> <br />There is a necessity for accurate and credible information. <br />? <br /> Keys to success <br />: Trust, time, courteous and continuous debate, accurate data, <br />commitment of all parties, consistent political and financial support, work towards <br />consensus. <br /> <br />Interstate Allocation of Water <br /> <br />Methods of Interstate Allocation of water <br />? <br /> <br />Supreme Court Decree <br />? <br /> <br />Act of Congress <br />? <br /> <br />Interstate Compacts <br />? <br /> <br />Two additional methods (Feat herstone 2001) <br /> <br />Informal associations <br />o <br /> <br />Federal - interstate compacts <br />o <br /> <br />Featherstone (2001), Copas (1997), Clemons (2004), and Grant (2003) examine these <br />methods all of which are applicable in an interbasin context. <br /> <br />Judicial Apportionment – The Supreme Court <br />? <br /> <br />Eq uitable apportionment was first established as the method for apportioning <br />water between states in Kansas v. Colorado. In Wyoming v. Colorado the court <br />switched directions and determined the relative priorities of the Colorado and <br />Wyoming appropriators ap plied because each state used the prior appropriation <br />system. In subsequent cases (Connecticut v. Massachusetts; Nebraska v. <br />Wyoming; Colorado v. New Mexico) the federal common law approach of <br />equitable apportionment established in Kansas v. Colorado appl ies even in <br />disputes among prior appropriation states. <br />? <br /> <br />This approach is fraught with complex factual, legal, policy, and political <br />considerations. <br />? <br /> <br />Equitable apportionment as applied by the Supreme Court in its most recent case <br />(Colorado v. New Mexico) emph asized three factors: 1) the equities of protecting <br />existing uses, 2) a state’s affirmative duty to find within state solutions, and 3) the <br />weighing of harms and benefits to the competing states. <br />? <br /> <br />Judicial apportionment is costly, time consuming, and has a high degree of <br />uncertainty for the disputing parties. It is something of a gamble for the states <br />who may be stuck with an unfavorable outcome. <br />? <br /> <br />This approach has the advantage of being certain to provide an answer <br />2 <br />