My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06339
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
17000-17999
>
WSPC06339
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:05:32 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:48:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.500.10
Description
Colorado River Basin-Water Quality-Salinity-Organizations and Entities-CO Dept of Public Health-WQCC
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/14/1980
Title
Colorado River Salinity-Water Quality Control Commission-1978 Standards-Standards and Implementation Policy Hearings-Comments on Behalf of Chevron Shale Oil Company
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 />\ <br />\ <br />I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e. <br /> <br />This conclusion falls in line with com ments made b'y the Court in ~ y <br />United States. 306 F.2d 270 (D. C. Circuit 1962). That case dealt with the Port of <br />New York authority established by compact between the states of New York and <br /> <br />New Jersey. Congress had consented to the compact but had expressly retained the <br /> <br /> <br />right to alter, amend or repeal its resolutions of approval. Congress ~roposed to <br /> <br /> <br />alter the compact and authorized a legislative investigation of the internal <br /> <br /> <br />administration of the Authority. Although the case was decided on another point, <br /> <br />the Court addressed the interstate compact issues: <br /> <br />. . . In granting its consent Congress can attach certain <br />binding conditions, not only to its consent to the <br />admission of a new state into the Union, but also to its <br />consent to the formation of an interstate compact. <br />However, the vital condition precedent to the validity <br />of any such attached condition is that it be constitu- <br />tional.. . <br /> <br />In the present case. therefore, Congress's express <br />reservation of the right "to alter. amend or repealrT its <br />initial consent to the creation of the Authority is <br />meaningless unless Congress has the power under the <br />Constitution "to alter, amend or repeal" its consent to <br />an interstate compact. The compact clause of the <br />Constitution does not specifically conter such power <br />upon Congress. No case has been cited to llS, nor have <br />we been able to find any case through our own research, <br />holding that Congress has such constitutional power. "" <br />Nor do we find any to the contrary. Since'. no such <br />power appears expressly in the compact clause. any <br />holding that it exists and that Congress possesses it <br />must be predicated on the conclusion that it exists as an <br />implied power. ... . . <br /> <br />We have no way of knowing what ramifications would <br />result from a holding that Congress has the implied <br />constitutional power "to alter, amend or repeal" its <br />consent to an interstate compact. Certainly, in view oC <br />the number and variety of interstate compacts in effect <br />today, such a holding would stir up an air oC uncertainty <br />in those areas of our national life presently affected by <br />the existence oC these compacts. No doubt the <br />suspicion of even potential impermanency would be <br />damaging to the very concept of interstate compacts. <br />at 272, 273, citations omitted. <br /> <br />1129 <br /> <br />-13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.