Laserfiche WebLink
<br />seems to mandate prior Congressional consent for all interstate agreements, the <br /> <br />Supreme Court has held that consent is required only where the compact thr atens <br /> <br />to significantly impinge on national interests and may be evidenced either b fore or <br /> <br />after agreement is reached.~ The typical practice is for Congress to enact SPI cmc <br /> <br />consent legislation after the states have reached agreement, which consent ay <br /> <br />contain conditions adding to or modifying the compact and usually expressly <br /> <br />reserving authority for Congress to revoke or amend its consent. Moreover, <br /> <br />Congressional consent does not preclude a later Congress from enacting legis ation <br /> <br />inconsistent with the approved compact, even if the consent legislation does n t <br /> <br />preserve that right. <br /> <br />Although the Court has emphasized that compacts are essentially cont <br /> <br /> <br />has also held that the Congressional consent legislation also makes a compact <br /> <br />federal statute,IO' which under accepted principles of statutory interpretation <br /> <br />presumably may supercede inconsistent state and federal laws except as othe se <br /> <br />provided in the compact or consent legislation. This dual status presents a nu <br /> <br />significant conceptual and legal issues which the Court has not yet sorted out. <br /> <br />Congress has approved some three dozen compacts relating to water resources <br /> <br />9' Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893) <br /> <br />10/ Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981) <br /> <br />7 <br />