Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />inevitable that disputes have and will continue to arise under many compacts. <br /> <br />However, since none of the compacts provide for binding arbitration, the only avenue <br /> <br />open for resolution of such disputes is an action in the Supreme Court by one or more <br /> <br />ofthe states to enforce the compact as they contend it should be interpreted.I4' <br /> <br />Most of the compacts, provide for the establishment of a permanent interstate <br /> <br />administrative agency or "commission" to carry out the functions essential for <br /> <br />achieving the compact's objectives. However, none ofthese compact commissions <br /> <br />possess the power to alter the original compact allocations in response to changing <br /> <br />conditions. Consequently, even though the compact parties may be in agreement as <br /> <br />to an appropriate course of action, the only option is to formally amend the compact <br /> <br />and return to Congress for its approval, which has seldom happened. <br /> <br />Although the states generally possess ample authority to confer broad powers <br /> <br />on compact commissions, the historic pattern reflects a lack of serious commitment to <br /> <br />any cooperative regional effort that requires a significant delegation of state powers <br /> <br />to an interstate entity that they may not be able to control. The irony of this <br /> <br />approach is that the more successful the states have been in hobbling compact <br /> <br />14' The United States enjoys "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits unless Congress has <br />expressly waived such immunity. Although Congress has enacted a waiver for <br />comprehensive intrastate stream adjudications, 43 U.S.C. ~666, it has not done so for <br />interstate litigation, except in the Colorado River Basin. 43 U.S.C.~620m. <br />Consequently, given the broad impact of the federal water related programs discussed in <br />Part I SUDra, it might be considered an "indispensable party" to any Supreme Court <br />litigation to enforce a compact or secure an equitable apportionment of an interstate <br />stream. See Idaho v. Orel!'on and Washimrton, 444 U.S. 380 (1980) Consequently, <br />unless it intervenes the litigation cannot go forward. <br /> <br />10 <br />