Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOl~59 <br /> <br />551-52. <br />Although Congress probably has the power to modify the <br />Compact, it is more doubtful whether it has the inclination <br />to do so. In a contest of political might between the Upper <br />Basin states and California, Nevada, and Arizona, the latter <br />must always be expected to prevail. Unless extraordinary <br />circumstances arise, Congress is very unlikely to legislate <br />an adjustment to the Compact. <br />C. Litigation in the United states Supreme Court <br />The Upper Basin's brightest hopes of achieving a proper <br />interpretation of the 1922 Compact may lie in a suit under <br />the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. See <br />U.S. Const., Art. II, fi2. Such a suit, though, would not be <br />free from perils. The Supreme Court might simply decline to <br />exercise jurisdiction. The united States might be deemed an <br />indispensible party, and its consent to be sued would be <br />necessary for the action to survive. See e.g. the third <br />Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. SS8 (1936). The Supreme <br />Court also implied that it would have dismissed the third <br />Arizona v. California on the ground that it did not present a <br />justifiable controversy. See 298 U.S. at 565-67. The Court <br />reasoned that Arizona, which sought an equitable apportion- <br />ment, had not suffered present harm because the Colorado <br />River water available to it exceeded its present water rights <br />and claims. Ibid. In Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 <br /> <br />-34- <br />