Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />9 21.04[2] <br /> <br />MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE <br /> <br />21-30 <br /> <br />to domestic, agricultural, and power purposes and which also <br />asserts that the River "has ceased to be navigable." Despite <br />severability language in Article IV of the Compact inviting <br />Congress to withhold its consent to that particular subordi- <br />nation provision without upsetting the entire Compact, Con- <br />gress approved the entire Compact without reservation. <br />Moreover, section 8 of the Act11 I subjects the operation of the <br />dam and the reservoir to the provisions of the Compact. In <br />the face of this discrepancy, the Court declared that "the spe- <br />cific statement of primary purpose in the Act governs the <br />general references to the Compact," 112 and held that the leg- <br />islation was valid, even though it was based on a factual <br />premise which the Compact contradicted and was at odds <br />with a Compact directive to which it had declared itself sl~b- <br />ject. Recently, the power of Congress to legislate with respect <br />to interstate water was broadened by Sporhase v. Nebraska <br />ex rel. Douglas. 113 , <br /> <br />A slight question about Congress' general authority to ad- <br />just interstate compacts unilaterally may linger as a legacy <br />of Poole v. Fleeger, 114 which held that the compact clause is a <br />limit upon the states' inherent power to compact, rather <br />than a grant of power to do so. Consequently, it may be ar- <br />gued that once having given its consent to an interstate com- <br />pact, Congress is powerless to revoke the consent or modify <br />the compact. There might also be a more particularized ob- <br />jection to the power of Congress to alter a compact by merely <br />reallocating the rights which the compact has provided to <br />particular states without at the same time making basic <br />changes to the underlying arrangement. Absent extraordi- <br />nary circumstances, such as a severe and chronic drought in <br />the Upper Basin, or an urgent national need for a crash pro- <br />gram to develop Upper Basin energy resources, the federal <br />interest in simply taking away water from one state and giv- <br />ing it to another may be difficult to justify. Moreover, to the <br />extent that such a transaction would impair the water rights <br /> <br />III ld. ~ 617g. <br />112 Arizona v, California, 283 U.S. 423, 456 (1931). <br />113 458 U.S, 941 (1982). <br />11436 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185 (1837), <br />