431 



First, if a compact is proposed for more than the performance of 

 service functions, the States must in fact give their joint agency 

 authority and resources sufficient to enable it to override each State's 

 independent prerogative to make and carry out its own policies in 

 its own portion of the estuary. Put differently, this condition requires 

 that the authority and resources given to a compact agency be com- 

 mensurate with its basic mission. If that mission is regulatory in the 

 sense that the agency is to develop the basic policies that are to govern 

 the management of a particular estuary, then the decisions of the com- 

 pact agency must be binding and preclude any signatory from admin- 

 istering less restrictive management policies. There also must be a 

 means of avoiding deadlocks between the signatories which stall 

 needed decisions, and of compelling the agency to make those deci- 

 sions. The latter is especially essential in situations where differences 

 in State views concerning policy in the estuary reflect very fundamen- 

 tal conflicts among different uses of estuarine resources. 



Similarly, if the basic mission of the compact agency also includes 

 the implementation and enforcement of these basic policies, then its 

 authority (1) must not be subject to the veto of a single State, (2) 

 should include all of the usual legal powers employed to abate- pollu- 

 tion and other public nuisances, (3) should include the power to dis- 

 allow action that is inconsistent with established policies, (4) should 

 include authority to perform functions of a State or local agency if 

 made necessary by the inaction of one of its signatories, and (5) should 

 be supported by adequate financial and staff resources. 



Likewise, if the agency's mission does not include either the setting 

 or implementation of policy and is limited to that of regional service, 

 then too its authority must be designed and supported so that the staff 

 of the agency in fact can perform that service effectively and usefully. 



The second condition is that the compact cannot be allowed to super- 

 sede or diminish Federal responsibility and authority for sound man- 

 agement of the Nation's estuaries. With or without Federal member- 

 ship in the compact agency, a compact cannot abrograte the Federal 

 Government's obligation to view the problems and needs of each estu- 

 ary from a national perspective and to act accordingly within the 

 limits of its authority. 



Given adherence to these conditions, the compact instrument should 

 prove to be a constructive way of achieving improved management in 

 interstate estuaries. It also could achieve the decentralization of policy- 

 making and administration that is essential if a major enlargement of 

 Federal management responsibility is to be avoided. 



Section" 2. Proposed Uses of the Compact Instrument in the 

 Chesapeake Basin 



the SUSQUEHANNA AND POTOMAC COMPACTS 



Both of these new compacts are concerned with the management of 

 resources indirectly affecting the estuarine resources of Chesapeake 

 Bay. The first, the proposed Susquehanna River Basin compact, has 

 been approved by Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, and legis- 

 lation granting congressional consent is awaiting action in the 91st 

 Congress. The second, the proposed Potomac River Basin compact. 



