Laserfiche WebLink
<br />On"),?("} 1 <br />iJ u.... lJ . <br /> <br />Observers of Title II river basin commissions generally credit them with <br />an ability to facilitate discussion of basin issues and to provide a framework for <br />bargaining. However, they also add that much of their success depended upon <br /> <br />an able and influential Chairman and a lack of competition from a dominant <br /> <br />"' <br /> <br />basin water development agency (National Water Commission, 1971)" <br /> <br />F. <br /> <br />Interstate and Federal-Interstate Compacts <br /> <br />Characteristics <br /> <br />The authority for states of the United States to formally contract or <br /> <br />agree between themselves is contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the <br /> <br />United States Constitution. The so-called "compact clause" of the Constitution <br /> <br />reads, in part, "No State shaH, without the consent of Congress. <br /> <br />. enter into <br /> <br />any agreement or compact with another State or foreign power." <br /> <br />Although some early interstate compacts in the United States dealt with <br /> <br />water issues such as navigation, fishing rights and state river boundaries, it was <br /> <br />not until 1922, when the Colorado River Compact was concluded between its <br /> <br />basin states, that the interstate compact was used for water management. <br /> <br />Since that time, numerous interstate compacts have been ratified that deal with <br /> <br />one or more aspects of water management, sometimes over an entire, multi- <br /> <br />state river basin. <br /> <br />A 1971 study for the National Water Commission concluded there were <br /> <br />four general categories of existing water compacts: (1) water allocation <br /> <br />compacts; (2) pollution control compacts; (3) flood control and planning <br /> <br />-19- <br />