WSPC05751 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p., Q009S~ The binding effect of a compact on a signatory State is accomplished through ratification by its legislature. In practice, a compact is negotiated by commissioners designated by the participating states. Although this paper will be devoted to the adjustment by compact of matters which concern the water resource, it may be well to point out that inter- state compacts have been used for the follo1>ing purposes: Boundaries and cessions of territory; control and improvement of naviga- tion; penal jurisdiction; uniformity of legislation; interstate accounting; con- servation of natural resources; utility regulations; and taxation. The validity of a compact on water, particularly where its terms and enforcement may conflict with water rights under State law, was upheld in 1937 by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hinderlider et al v. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (302 U. s. 646). In that case the Court held that adjustment of controversial rights and the use of water may be made by compact without a judicial or quasi-judicial determination of existing rights, as well as by suit in the Supreme Court. In commenting upon the appor- tionment of water of the La Plata River made by the compact between Colorado and New Mexico, the Court held that such apportionment is binding upon the citizens of each State and upon all water claimants even where the State had previously granted water rights. This holding was based upon the theory, expressed by the Court, that no claimant has any right greater than the equitable share of the water of an interstate stream, to which the State is entitled. The Supreme Court of the United States has frequently recommended that interstate water controversies be adjusted by compact in order to avoid the difficulties incident to litigation. Experience in litigation before the -2-