My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP13022
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSP13022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 1:54:43 PM
Creation date
4/3/2008 1:52:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8044
Description
Interstate Compacts
Date
1/1/2002
Author
Water Information Program/David Robbins
Title
Interstate Compact Obligations: Impacts on Colorado Water Supply, speech exerpt from Gunnison Water Workshop
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Quarterly Newsletter January 2002 Volume 7, Issue 1 <br /> <br />.!'l'fffj,(jlifl<te CompttettJllllgtittblU: <br />Iinp.ctJ On Colorado Water Supply <br /> <br />Froln (l Jpeech by DavUJ JI7. RobbilU~ Attorney at Law~ Hill e3 RobbilU~ RC. <br /> <br />At the 24th Annual Water Work.Jhop~ GunnUon~. Cou.,raOQo <br /> <br />I would like to start the discussion about compacts and of radioactivity, and several states hav~ ~tlt~~e~~;tN.~i~}+ <br />their implications with a discussion of the nature of compact to regulate for its disposal. Clearl~ that is an area <br />compacts. Interstate compacts are contractual agreements, where Congress could decide, under the health, safety and <br />like treaties, between two or more states or, in some cases, welfare clause of the Constitution, that it was going to take <br />between states and the federal government. In colonial primacy, and probably could singularly overrule that <br />America, it was a common practice for colonies to settle compact with a broad-based piece of federal legislation. <br />boundary disputes by agreement, subject to approval of <br />the Crown. This practice was carried over in the Articles <br />of Confederation and the Constitution. Article I, Section <br />10, Clause 3 provides: No State shall, without the consent <br />of Congress. . . enter into any Agreement or Compact <br />with another State, or with <br />a foreign Power, . . . . <br /> <br />Compacts are the law of each signatory state. Each state <br />has responsibility to ensure that its laws are enforced, .Cl,O.d <br />compacts are no different. They are also a law of the United <br />States and have been so described by the U.S. Supreme <br />Court. Finally, they are a contract, <br />enforceable by its terms under the <br />principles of contract law. Compacts <br />can occur when Congress consents to <br />the states agreeing upon certain <br />matters of common sovereignty. <br />Congress can consent before the states <br />actually draft the specific terms, or as <br />in some instances, Congress consents <br />after the states have agreed. Upon <br />consent, you have the congressional action necessary to <br />transform the compact into a law. I will describe later why <br />that is important. Congress cannot unilaterally amend <br />compacts. To change a compact requires the action of the <br />signatories. Congress must ratifY a compact, and Congress <br />may regulate the same resource by other mechanisms (i.e., <br />The Clean Water Act), but I don't believe the Congress <br />could simply pass a law that had as its sole purpose the <br />unilateral amendment of a compact. That is not to say <br />that Congress could not act within its constitutional powers <br />to legislate on a subject that limited the way in which a <br />compact actually operated. <br /> <br />\\7ttter compacts have, in the "West, one <br />thing in common: they are designed to <br />allocate consumption. It doesn't matter <br />how the compact goes about doing it. <br />When you strip away all of the gloss, <br />they are allocating consumption. They <br />do it in a variety of ways. <br /> <br />Although the Constitution <br />seems literally to require <br />congressional consent for any <br />agreement between states, the <br />U.S. Supreme Court has <br />limited the requirement of <br />congressional consent under <br />the Compact clause to interstate agreements which may <br />affect the political balance within the federal system or <br />infringe on a power delegated to the federal government. <br />Early compacts dealt primarily with boundary issues, but <br />in the twentieth century, compacts have been used to cover <br />a wide variety of subjects, including the allocation of <br />interstate rivers and streams. There are compacts on bridge <br />tolls, compacts on low-level hazardous waste, compacts <br />on water - be clear that the compact works in the legal <br />realm where the federal government has not asserted, or <br />the Constitution has not provided for, federal sovereignty. <br />There is a low level hazardous waste compact in the West, <br />and Colorado is a signatory to it. The Compact deals <br />with material like x-ray film that have a very small amount <br /> <br />Water compacts are used at various places throughout the <br />Continued on page 2 <br /> <br />In thiJ IJJue of the Water Letter <br /> <br />Interstate Compact Obligations ............................... 1 & 2 Point vs. Non-Point Water Pollution ................................. 3 <br />Federal Reserve Water Rights Update ............................... 2 Events Calendar ................................................................ 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.