433 



that this member could disregard the wishes of the Cabinet officers 

 directing the Federal departments dealing with water resources. 



(3) The absence of safeguards giving assurance that the action 

 of Federal licensing and regulatory agencies would prevail, in the 

 event of conflict or confusion resulting from the exercise by the com- 

 pact agency of comparable powers vested in it by the compact. 



(4) The absence of provisions requiring the compact agency to 

 give preference to public bodies and cooperatives in the sale of hydro- 

 electric power generated at projects constructed and operated by the 

 agency. 



Because the proposed Potomac compact follows substantially the 

 same approach on each of the above issues, one must conclude that it 

 will encounter similar objections from Federal agencies. 



In addition, however, objections already are being raised to this 

 compact as it is being considered for possible ratification by the State 

 legislatures. This early opposition appears to stem from various local 

 governments and private interests in the basin, and particularly from 

 the West Virginia portion of the basin. Although phrased in a variety 

 of ways, the objections seem basically to reflect the following : (1) that 

 the interests of upstream water users are inadequately protected; 

 (2) that local governments in the basin are subordinated to a too- 

 powerful compact agency ; (3) that there is a lack of popular or citizen 

 control over the compact agency; (4) that the agency's regulatory 

 authority over the use of land resources of the basin is too extensive ; 

 and (5) that the District of Columbia should not be included as a 

 signatory equal to the basin States. 



A SUGGESTED USE OF THE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN MANAGING CHESAPEAKE 



BAY 



Proposals to utilize a compact to improve State-level management 

 of the estuarine resources of Chesapeake Bay have been advanced from 

 time to time. In recent years, this proposal usually has called for the 

 enactment of a compact modeled after the Delaware River Basin 

 compact and the two compacts now being urged for the Susquehanna 

 and Potomac River Basins. Adherence to this approach would place 

 the estuarine resources of Chesapeake Bay under a Federal- interstate 

 commission empowered to perform the three broad management func- 

 tions which were noted earlier in describing the latter two compacts. 



As here conceived, however, the interstate compact to manage the 

 estuarine resources of Chesapeake Bay would be an agreement be- 

 tween Maryland and Virginia under which each State would commit 

 itself to take four actions : 



(1) To prepare and, after consulting with the other State, to adopt 

 and implement a management plan for the portion of Chesapeake 

 Bay under its jurisdiction; to prepare this plan in cooperation with 

 local governments, the other States, appropriate Federal agencies, and 

 others ; and to include in such plan at least the following components : 

 (a) wetlands protection and management component; (h) water 

 quality management component; (c) recreational use component; and 

 {d) waterway utilities, and industrial use component. 



(2) To establish policies and procedures whereby each State assures 



