Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1, section 10, clause 3 authorized the continued use of interstate agreements or <br /> <br />"compacts" (a device which had been liberally used in Colonial America to resolve <br /> <br />boundary disputes), subject only to the requirement of Congressional consent to <br /> <br />assure protection of any national interest that might be implicated in such <br /> <br />agreements. <br /> <br />The second mechanism for the settlement of interstate disputes was an <br /> <br />original action by a state against one or more other states in the Supreme Court <br /> <br />provided for in article III, section 2. In a number of decisions the Court progressively <br /> <br />developed the guiding principle that each state in an interstate river basin is entitled <br /> <br />to an "equitable share" of the river, determined by the Court's evaluation of a <br /> <br />number of factors relevant to an "equitable apportionment." <br /> <br />It was not until the Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Arizona v. California, <br /> <br />373 U.S. 546, that a third avenue for the resolution of interstate water disputes was <br /> <br />discovered, namely Congressional exercise of its broad authority under the <br /> <br />Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allocate the waters of interstate rivers. <br /> <br />A. Interstate Compacts <br /> <br />Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States Constitution provides that" <br /> <br />"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress. . . enter into any Agreement or <br /> <br />Compact with another State or with a foreign Power." Although the compact clause <br /> <br />8' California v. United States. 438 U.S. 645 (1978), and United States v. New Mexico. 438 <br />U.S. 696 (1978). <br /> <br />6 <br />