WSPC06339 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . . : The ~ case, supra and the 1855 case Pennsylvania v. Wheelin~ and Belmont Brid~e Co., 59 U.S. 435, 18 How. 421, illustrate why the elfect of Congressional consent to an inlerstate compact may de~end on the substantive nature of the compact. In the Pennsylvania case the Court held that Congress could alter the effect of an interstate compact. The nature of the activity involved there, navigati.on, was such that this caused no injury. Compacts that deal with on-going. activities, such as the port authority and navigation compacts which were at issue in Tobin, supra, and the Pennslyvania case, supra, by the very nature of their substance must change as the needs of the port or river change. By the same token, it i.s imperative that compacts dealing with matters such as boundaries and water rights remain forever stable absent agreement by the compac~i~ states. The purpose of the Colorado River System Compacts was to divide property (i.e. rights to the use of a quanity of water) at a specific point in time. If the compact were not to remain undisturbed and the rights thereby determined to remain stable there would be no purpose for the compact at all. Article 1Il(€) and (g) or the Colorado River Compact providas for revision of t~e compact after 1963, if a call is made by two states and the President. Article X of the Colorado River Compact establishes the fact that the parties agreed that the rights acquired under the compact were property rights which would vest during the life of the compact and remain undisturbed even at a rut~e termination of the compact. It is significant that in the fifteen years since revision has been possible under the provisions. of Article ill of the Colorado River Compact there has been no call made for amendment or repeal either by initiative of the states or the President. This implies that the signatory parties are satisfied with the manner in which the Colorado River waters have been developed and that the compact should continue to govern the use of the Colorado River. [t also demonstrates that the Presidents in office since 1963 have also been satisfied with the provisions of the compact as they affect federal rights and programs. It is also important to note that in granting 8P9roval to the Com~act. Con- gress did 110t include a reservation of the right to llter, amend or repeal its consent as it had in the New York Port Authority Compacts of 1921 and 1922 which were at issue in the ~ case, supra. Since Congress had previously used such language in its consent to a compact it can be inferred that Congress did not intend that the Colorado River Compact should be amended or repealed other than as provided in Artio,le III or the Com~nct.