WSP12627 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...,...,.:,.". - 000712 [I]t seems timely for this Court to declare that when states enter into a compact they undertake an implied commitment to make the compact work and to take no affIrmative or dilatory action that would frustrate its purpose. This is the rule under general commercial contract law16 and would seem particularly applicable to political agreements among sovereign states. More significantly, once the states reach agreement and seek the requisite Congressional consent to the regional program, it seems clear that any resulting Congressional consent also imposes an implied duty on the part of the compacting states to participate in good faith in the implementation of the compact plan to carry out its purposes. . Such an implication is eminently reasonable, otherwise the compact program to which Congress has consented and thereby deferred direct legislative action might fail, aU to the detriment of the national interest. * * * 16Tymshare, Inc. v. Covell. 727 F.2d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Restatement (Second) of Contracts S205 (1979); 4 Corbin on Contracts f 947 (I9SI and Supp. 1971). The Court politely rejected that recommendation. Oklahoma and Texas v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221,229,241 note II (1991). Finally, does a state signatory to a water allocation compact have an implied duty to make "reasonable beneficial use" of its allocation, with all that implies, particularly where each state's own law imposes that same obligation on its water users? C.f Wyoming y. Colorado; Colorado v. New Mexico, pages 3-4 supra. IV. CONCLUSION The Supreme Court indisputably has the power to at least assigil a high priority to watershed protection and management in its equitable apportionment and interstate compact cases with~ut imposing specific goals or mechanisms for its accomplishment. Furthermore, its decisions suggest that it would be receptive to doing so upon a properly developed record. Who will take the initiative to urge the Court to do so and how? Nebraska v. Wyoming (No. l08 Orig.), Kansas v. Nebraska (No. 126 Orig.) and Virginia v. Maryland (No. 129 Orig.) are all still before Special Masters appointed by the Court; 4l:U~~&,(1,I;H:lli_miI1Bt~~~~'P-articUl~1~.;f()l!:s(jelnltt'e-W6ri~tf~flf,""en\l:oofi1Tfetit3I./ ~ttS.~~~aatt~Dut if they don't do so, would amicus curiae briefs by other appropriate entities b~"'practical when that case finally reaches the Court? Wouldn't the effort, even ifrejected, at least sensitize the Court to the issue? With respect to Congressional action on existing 9f future compacts, a bi-partisan initiative to consider the role of watershed protection and management, even if only oversight hearings, might have a reasonable prospect of success and produce some useful information and discussion, if not legislation. 313