Research Guides: Student Project: Interstate Water Compacts: Introduction

What are interstate water compacts?

Library of Congress June 2018 Interstate Compacts in the United States

An Interstate Water Compact allocates water rights to particular bodies of water to the party states. "An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States that is approved by those states’ respective legislatures, and, if required based on the subject matter of compact, consented to by the US Congress." Library of Congress June 2018 Interstate Compacts in the United States at 1.
Interstate compacts are negotiated contracts between two or more states. After the compact is negotiated, it must be approved by the legislatures of the states who are a party to the compact. Once approved by the state legislature it becomes a state statute. The US Constitution Article 1 Section 10 requires congressional approval of compacts between states. However, the US Supreme Court in 1893 held in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, consent is required only if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States”. Interstate Compacts in the United States, Library of Congress June 2018 Id.at 2

Interstate Water Compacts

This research guide looks at interstate water compacts within the United States, specifically Arizona, California, Colorado which fall within the western states of the United States where water is scarce.

History of Interstate Water Compacts in the Western States

The Colorado River Compact
1922 was an agreement among several western states including Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, California, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. This was the first major interstate water compact for the western states. The purpose of the compact was to provide equitable division and apportionment of the use of the water of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of the different beneficial uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; to source the expeditious agriculture and industrial development of Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods.
more...less...
To these ends, the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made”. Article 1 of The Colorado River Compact, 1922.The Compact divides the states into the Upper Division States and the Lower Division States and so divided rights between those two halves. The Upper Division States include are Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Lower Division States are Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Compact, however, did not provide detail as to how the states should divide the water. This led to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928.
Boulder Canyon Project Act

Research Guides

Dictionaries

Free Dictionary by Farlex
Black's Law Dictionary *
- This link opens in a new window
Ballotpedia

Landmark Case

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) involved the apportionment for the Lower Division states for the mainstream water of the Colorado River. The Supreme Court largely affirmed the decision of the specially-appointed Magistrate, and noted that the Colorado Compact and the state's apportionment law statutes did not supersede the Boulder Canyon Act; the Colorado compact did not precisely address how the Lower Division states were to apportion the water among themselves.

Interstate Water Compacts Cases

Intake Water Company v. Yellowstone River Compact Commission, 769 F.2d 568 (9th Cir,1985) Intake alleged that the Yellowstone River Compact placed an undue burden on commerce. The Ninth Circuit held that since the Compact was approved by Congress it fell under federal law and was therefore immune to such an attack.
Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983) The Court held that exceptions of the Government and New Mexico to the Master's recommendation that either the United States Commissioner or some other third party be given a vote on the Commission and be empowered to participate in all Commission deliberations were sustained.
Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221 (1991) The court held that Oklahoma's exception to the recommendation in Part VI of the Master's Report is overruled. Nothing on the Compact's face indicates a clear intention to base New Mexico's limitation on available reservoir capacity when Texas' limitation is based on stored water.
Texas v. Mexico, 586 U.S. 141 (2018) Lawsuit by Texas alleging that New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact.
Tarrant Regional v. Herrmann, 569 U.S 11–889 (2013) The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision that the Red River Compact, which allocates water rights within the Red River basin among the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana, does not pre-empt the Oklahoma water statutes at issue in this case.
Montana v. Wyoming, S, 3 U.S. 3,1765 (2011) State of Montana filed bill of complaint, alleging that Wyoming breached Yellowstone River Compact by allowing its upstream pre–1950 water users to switch from flood to sprinkler irrigation, which increased crop consumption of water and decreased the volume of runoff and seepage returning to the river system. Special Master found that Montana failed to state a claim. Montana filed an exception. the Supreme Court overruled the exception.

Symposium

My Profile

Joharah Alkahtani

S.J.D Candidate, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University

Jalkahtani@law.pace.edu

Student Project: Interstate Water Compacts: Introduction