It may be preferable for countries to have conflict resolution procedures in place before disputes arise, whether the conflicts are among individual water users, states within countries or neighbouring countries. The water law allocation doctrines applied by the three American states are mainly applicable to individual water users. Of the three methods of interstate water conflict resolution in the USA mentioned earlier, the interstate compact is theoretically preferable, as the states have agreed to the allocation in advance. Compacts sometimes come about only after one state has had to resort to a lawsuit seeking equitable apportionment in the Supreme Court, and recent litigation indicates that having a compact does not insure against further disputes. Having two states to recognize, discuss, negotiate and resolve their disputes by compact, however, seems preferable to the uncertainty of equitable apportionment decided by the Supreme Court. Interstate water dispute resolution involves a complexity and level of detail that makes it generally unsuitable for Congressional allocation.
Was this article helpful?