Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003?:;1 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />- western compact commissions have generally thus far chosen to limit their <br /> <br /> <br />activities to those pertinent to the apportionment process. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />Muys gives the following reasons (here paraphrased) for favoring the <br /> <br /> <br />federal-interstate compact as a mechanism for multi-state river basin <br /> <br /> <br />management: <br /> <br />1. Its adaptability to the particular needs of a river basin -- it may be <br /> <br /> <br />broad or narrow in scope and endow its administrative arm with sweeping <br /> <br /> <br />or quite limited powers. <br /> <br />2. With both state and the Federal Government as signatories, any defects <br /> <br /> <br />that might exist in state authority to confer powers upon the compact's <br /> <br /> <br />administrative arm would be reduced or eliminated. <br /> <br />3. It is not inherently more difficult to negotiate and effectuate a federal- <br /> <br /> <br />interstate compact than other, perhaps less effective, institutional entities <br /> <br /> <br />for multi-state river basin management. <br /> <br />4, <br /> <br />Recent federal-interstate compact provisions seem to reflect more <br /> <br /> <br />concern for citizen participation in the water management process than <br /> <br /> <br />do earlier compacts, at least in terms of requirements for public hearings, <br /> <br /> <br />advisory c;ommittees, and channels of public communication. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. The federal-interstate compact, by binding the Federal Government as a <br /> <br /> <br />signatory, provides the link that is missing in exclusively interstate water <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />-23- <br />