Laserfiche WebLink
<br />management of the Basin, as well as all other DRBC authority, is not allowed to <br /> <br />affect the rights and obligations of the states under a 1954 Supreme Court decree, <br /> <br />other than by unanimous agreement. <br /> <br />Based on the DRBC's track record at the time,I6' the National Water <br /> <br />Commission's 1973 report, Water Policies for the Future, recommended the federal- <br /> <br />interstate compact approach "as the preferred institutional arrangement for water <br /> <br />resources planning and management in multi. state regions" (Rec. No. 11-18) and it <br /> <br />has been the model for recent compacts governing the apportionment of certain <br /> <br />interstate rivers in Georgia, Alabama and Florida.I7' <br /> <br />II. SUPREME COURT "EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT" <br /> <br />The basic premise of the Supreme Court's equitable apportionment decisions is that <br /> <br />each interstate basin state is entitled to an "equitable share" of the basin's water and <br /> <br />fish resourceS.I8' Thus the Court's focus has traditionally been primarily on quantitative <br /> <br />16' Unfortunately, a recent study of the DRBC reports that in recent years the federal <br />representative and agencies have not taken their obligations seriously, to the point that <br />Congress zeroed out its financial support of the federal representative a few years ago. <br /> <br />17' Alabama - Coosa - Tallapoosa River Basin Compact, 111 Stat. 2233 (1997); Apalachicola <br />- Chattachooche - Flint River Basin Compact, 111 Stat. 2219 (1997). For a review of <br />current problems in implementing an "allocation formula" under those compacts, see <br />Hearine: on the ACT and ACF River Basin Comnacts before the Subcommittee on <br />Cornmercial and Administrative Law of the House Judiciarv Committee. 107th Long., 1st <br />Sess. (2001). <br /> <br />18' Because a state seeking an equitable apportionment is considered to be acting in a <br />narens natriae capacity for all of its citizens, third parties are generally not granted <br />intervention. New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369 (1953). Although the Special <br />Master in Nebraska v. Wyoming, p.18 infra. rejected petitions to intervene by several <br />environmental groups claiming the United States had failed to develop an adequate <br /> <br />14 <br />