Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />THE COLORADO RIVER CO.CT <br />AND UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN COMPACT <br />CANNOT BE UNILATERALLY REPEALED, ALTERED OR <br />AMENDED BY CONGRESS <br /> <br />Interstate compacts occupy a unique position in United States law. They are <br /> <br /> <br />neither treaties nor mere contracts, nor true federal statutes. States have the <br /> <br /> <br />power to bind their citizens to such interstate contracts.1 A recent series of Ninth <br /> <br /> <br />Circuit" decisions dealing Ivith the Tahoe Regional Planning Cornpact2 have held <br /> <br /> <br />that compacts afe federal statutes for the purpose of establishing federal <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.Sl33I, while also finding" that the bi-state ~lanning" <br /> <br />agency under the Tahoe Compact operated as an entity of each state and was <br /> <br /> <br />therefore protected by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. <br /> <br /> <br />A compact presents a federal question in its construction and is SUbject to cer- <br /> <br /> <br />tiorari review by the Supreme Court.3 <br /> <br />The determinatfon that compacts are federal statutes for federal court <br /> <br />jUrisdiction is logical for two reasons. First, a compact between tWQ or more <br /> <br />states is the voluntary and. amicable means by which they can resolve a dispute. <br /> <br /> <br />V?'here such agreement cannot be reached, the resotution will come from the <br /> <br />.,. <br /> <br />Supreme Court since it has jurisdiction by virtue of Articl~ ~, Section 2 ot the <br /> <br /> <br />Constitution over suits brought between states. As was pointed out in Rhode Island <br /> <br />Y. Massachusetts, l2 Pet. 657, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838) it would not make sense for the <br /> <br />Supreme Court to resolve original suits between the states and not ,have jurisdiction <br /> <br /> <br />over questions involving the interstate compacts which have resolved the states' <br /> <br /> <br />differences. Second, it is logical to conler lower Cederal courts with the same <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdiction considering the Supreme Court's crowded docket and for the reason <br /> <br /> <br />that the alternative would allow the CoUrts of each signatory state to interpret a <br /> <br />compact, very probably resulting in contrary decisions. <br /> <br />I <br />Hinderlider v. LaPlata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 58 S.Ct. <br />803, 82 L.Ed. 1202 (1938). <br /> <br />2 <br />LeaguE' to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 507 F.2d. 517 9th <br />Cir. U9H) cert. demed, 4:.W 210 97-l, 95 S.Ct. 1398, 43 L.Ed. 2d 654 (1975)j <br />People of State of California ex. reI. Younl2;er v. T.R.P.A., 516 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. <br />1975) <br />League to Save Lake T.hoe v. B.J.K. Corp., 547 F .2d 1972 (9th Cir. 1976) <br />Jacooson v. Tahoe Regional Planolns; Agency, 566 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1977) <br /> <br />3 D,=Is:lwJ'II"p. River Joint ToU Bridge Commission v. Colburn, 310 U.S. 419 (1940) <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />./1,] <br />"-l <br />