Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"""',(. , ~ ~ <br />Ool~;)~ <br /> <br />the 1922 Compact <br />The Upper states could seek relief from the unintended <br />restrictions of the law of the river through a mechanism <br /> <br />provided by the 1922 Compact itself. Article VI states that: <br /> <br />Should any claim or controversy arise between any <br />two or more of the Signatory States ... (b) over <br />the meaning or performance of the terms of this <br />compact; [or) (c) as to the allocation of the <br />burdens incident to the performance of any article <br />of this compact or the delivery of waters as herein <br />provided ... the Governors of the States affected, <br />upon the request of one of them, shall forthwith <br />appoint commissioners with power to consider and <br />adjust such claim or controversy, subject to <br />ratification by the Legislatures of the States so <br />affected. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, though, this provision would seem not to <br /> <br />materially enhance the present prospects for a resolution of <br /> <br />the fundamental issues. Each state is given two opportun- <br />ities to prevent a settlement.. Either its commissioner can <br />refuse initially to accept an agreement, or its legislature <br /> <br />can withhold ratification. <br /> <br />There is simply not now any <br /> <br />incentive for the Lower states to deprive themselves volun- <br />tarily of a substantial portion of their Compact water in <br /> <br />order to ease the plight of their northern neighbors. <br />B. Federal Legislation Modifying the 1922 Compact <br /> <br />Congress probably possess the power under the Commerce <br />Clause of the Constitution to modify an interstate compact <br />by statute. By ratifying a compact Congress transforms it <br /> <br />into Federal statutory law. <br /> <br />See Intake Water <br /> <br />Co. v. Yellowstone River Compact Comm., S90 F.Supp. 293 <br /> <br />(D. Mont. 1983), and Congress, of course, is at liberty to <br /> <br />-30- <br />