Laserfiche WebLink
<br />management. H' A study of interstate water compacts prepared for the National <br /> <br />Water Commission in 1972 evaluated the effectiveness of existing water compacts <br /> <br />and compared the compact mechanism to other institutional approaches to interstate <br /> <br />river basin management.I21 It concluded that the chief advantage of the compact <br /> <br />approach is its adaptability to the special, often unique physical, social or political <br /> <br />needs of a particular basin. Since a compact must be the product of agreement <br /> <br />among the states, it can be shaped as the states desire in accordance with their <br /> <br />particular regional philosophy of appropriate intergovernmental relations, rather <br /> <br />than being imposed by Congress or the Supreme Court. It can be targeted on a <br /> <br />single problem, such as water allocation, or may seek more comprehensive, <br /> <br />multipurpose goals that permit flexible, adaptive management of the compact <br /> <br />allocations. Similarly, it may create a permanent administrative entity and endow it <br /> <br />with such powers as the states consider appropriate to accomplish their regional <br /> <br />objectives, provided they are not inconsistent with broad national goals. <br /> <br />Beginning with the Colorado River Compact of 1922, discussed in Part III <br /> <br />infra, Congress has granted its consent to about some 26 water allocation compacts, <br /> <br />mostly in the West and all still in effect. They reflect a number of different <br /> <br />H' For a highly useful compilation of the text of all of the Supreme Court's interstate water <br />decisions and interstate water compacts, see G.W. Sherk, Dividing the Waters: The <br />Resolution ofInterstate Water Conflicts in the United States (Kluwer Law Int. 2000) <br /> <br />12' Muys, Interstate Water Compacts (July 1971), U.S. Dep't of Commerce, National <br />Technical Information Service (PB 202998). <br /> <br />8 <br />