    Interstate Compacts: An Overview of the Structure and Governance
    of Environment and Natural Resource Compacts (03-APR-07,
    GAO-07-519).

    Interstate compacts are legal agreements between states that are
    designed to resolve concerns that transcend state lines, such as
    allocating interstate waters. While some compacts assign their
    administration to existing state agencies, compacts requiring
    greater coordination among states may establish an interstate
    agency, typically called a commission, to administer their
    provisions. Congress must give its consent to compacts that
    affect the balance of power between the states and the federal
    government. An example of a congressionally approved environment
    and natural resource compact is the Tahoe Regional Planning
    Compact, which created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
    to administer its provisions. For such compacts, GAO determined
    (1) the organizational structures, powers and authorities, and
    dispute resolution and public accountability mechanisms; (2) the
    extent to which concerns have been raised about the structure and
    governance of compacts that have commissions; and (3) how the
    structure and governance of TRPA compares to those of other
    similar compact commissions. GAO reviewed 59 congressionally
    approved compacts and surveyed those 45 that had commissions.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-519
        ACCNO:   A67684
      TITLE:     Interstate Compacts: An Overview of the Structure and
    Governance of Environment and Natural Resource Compacts
         DATE:   04/03/2007
      SUBJECT:   Accountability
    	     Advisory committees
    	     Agency missions
    	     Comparative analysis
    	     Conservation
    	     Cooperative agreements
    	     Independent regulatory commissions
    	     Land use
    	     Regional planning
    	     Regulation
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Surveys

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-519

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]Most Environment and Natural Resource Compacts Are Administe

              * [4]Organizational Structure and Governance Generally Varied amo

                   * [5]Organizational Structure
                   * [6]Powers and Authorities
                   * [7]Dispute Resolution
                   * [8]Public Accountability

              * [9]Compacts without Commissions Varied in Their Powers and Auth

                   * [10]Powers and Authorities
                   * [11]Dispute Resolution
                   * [12]Public Accountability

         * [13]Significant Concerns about Compact Commissions' Structure an

              * [14]Concerns about Organizational Structure
              * [15]Concerns about Public Accountability
              * [16]Concerns about Regulatory Authority
              * [17]Concerns Have Reflected Disagreement with Commission Actions

         * [18]While the Structure and Governance of TRPA Are Generally Sim

              * [19]Three Interstate Compact Commissions Perform Similar Functio
              * [20]TRPA's Organizational Structure and Governance Are Generally

                   * [21]Organizational Structure
                   * [22]Dispute Resolution
                   * [23]Public Accountability

              * [24]TRPA Has More Extensive Land Use Planning Authority than the
              * [25]Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
              * [26]Columbia River Gorge Commission
              * [27]Delaware River Basin Commission
              * [28]Susquehanna River Basin Commission

         * [29]GAO Contact
         * [30]Staff Acknowledgments
         * [31]GAO's Mission
         * [32]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [33]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [34]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [35]Congressional Relations
         * [36]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    April 2007

    INTERSTATE COMPACTS

    An Overview of the Structure and Governance of Environment and Natural
    Resource Compacts

    GAO-07-519

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 4
    Background 6
    Most Environment and Natural Resource Compacts Are Administered by
    Commissions 8
    Significant Concerns about Compact Commissions' Structure and Governance
    Have Not Been Frequently Raised 13
    While the Structure and Governance of TRPA Are Generally Similar to Those
    of Other Compact Commissions, Its Regulatory Authority Is Broader 18
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28
    Appendix II Descriptions of Interstate Compacts Included in Our Review 31
    Appendix III Descriptions of TRPA and Three Selected Compact Commissions
    35
    Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

    Tables

    Table 1: Environment and Natural Resource Compacts, by Subject Matter 7
    Table 2: Comparison of Commission Management Plan Issues 21
    Table 3: Summary of the Composition of TRPA and Three Other Compact
    Commissions 23
    Table 4: Congressionally Approved Environment and Natural Resource
    Compacts 31

    Figures

    Figure 1: Frequency of Concerns regarding Organizational Structure 14
    Figure 2: Frequency of Concerns regarding Public Accountability 16
    Figure 3: Frequency of Concerns regarding Regulatory Authority 17
    Figure 4: Map of the United States Showing the Jurisdictions of TRPA and
    the CRGC 19
    Figure 5: Map of the United States Showing the Jurisdictions of the DRBC
    and the SRBC 20
    Figure 6: Map and Photographs of the Lake Tahoe Region 35
    Figure 7: Map and Photographs of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
    Area 37
    Figure 8: Map and Photographs of the Delaware River Basin 39
    Figure 9: Map and Photographs of the Susquehanna River Basin 41

    Abbreviations

    CRGC Columbia River Gorge Commission
    DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission
    FTE full-time equivalent
    SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission
    TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    April 3, 2007 April 3, 2007

    The Honorable Don Young
    Ranking Minority Member
    Committee on Natural Resources
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable John T. Doolittle
    House of Representatives

    Interstate compacts are legal agreements between two or more states that
    are designed to resolve problems or concerns that transcend state lines.
    Such compacts enable states to act jointly and collectively to devise
    solutions for matters that are beyond the authority of an individual state
    but which are not within the immediate purview of the federal government
    or easily resolved through a purely federal response. Prior to the
    twentieth century, interstate compacts were used almost exclusively to
    settle state boundary disputes. In more recent times, their use has
    expanded to include such diverse purposes as allocating interstate waters,
    developing regional transportation systems, and enhancing law enforcement.
    More than 200 interstate compacts exist today, according to the Council of
    State Governments. At least 76 of these compacts are designed to address
    environment and natural resource management issues such as conservation
    and environment (fisheries, forest fire protection, and water pollution
    control), energy (low-level radioactive waste), planning and development
    (land use planning for environment and natural resource protection), and
    water resource management (water apportionment and flood control).
    Interstate compacts are legal agreements between two or more states that
    are designed to resolve problems or concerns that transcend state lines.
    Such compacts enable states to act jointly and collectively to devise
    solutions for matters that are beyond the authority of an individual state
    but which are not within the immediate purview of the federal government
    or easily resolved through a purely federal response. Prior to the
    twentieth century, interstate compacts were used almost exclusively to
    settle state boundary disputes. In more recent times, their use has
    expanded to include such diverse purposes as allocating interstate waters,
    developing regional transportation systems, and enhancing law enforcement.
    More than 200 interstate compacts exist today, according to the Council of
    State Governments. At least 76 of these compacts are designed to address
    environment and natural resource management issues such as conservation
    and environment (fisheries, forest fire protection, and water pollution
    control), energy (low-level radioactive waste), planning and development
    (land use planning for environment and natural resource protection), and
    water resource management (water apportionment and flood control).

    To form a compact, two or more states typically negotiate an agreement,
    and then each state legislature enacts a law that is identical to the
    agreement reached. Once all states specified in the compact have enacted
    such laws, the compact is formed. In some cases, if a compact affects the
    balance of power between the states and the federal government or affects
    a power constitutionally delegated to the federal government, it must also
    obtain congressional consent. In consenting to a compact, Congress may add
    certain conditions, such as specifying that compact disputes be resolved
    in federal courts. Otherwise, the compact's subject matter and substance
    are largely left to the discretion of the negotiating parties. To form a
    compact, two or more states typically negotiate an agreement, and then
    each state legislature enacts a law that is identical to the agreement
    reached. Once all states specified in the compact have enacted such laws,
    the compact is formed. In some cases, if a compact affects the balance of
    power between the states and the federal government or affects a power
    constitutionally delegated to the federal government, it must also obtain
    congressional consent. In consenting to a compact, Congress may add
    certain conditions, such as specifying that compact disputes be resolved
    in federal courts. Otherwise, the compact's subject matter and substance
    are largely left to the discretion of the negotiating parties.

    When negotiating a compact, the states typically establish a framework for
    administering and implementing the compact's provisions. The framework
    varies widely and depends largely on the subject matter, scope, and
    complexity of the compact agreement. In some cases, the compact does
    little more than prescribe certain conditions with which the member states
    must comply or require the states to cooperate in furthering the purposes
    of the compact. In such cases, the states often assign the compact's
    administration and implementation to existing agencies or officials within
    the member states. By doing so, the states can coordinate their resources
    to avoid duplicating efforts or costs, take advantage of economies of
    scale, and promote more effective management of issues common to the
    member states. For example, some interstate water allocation compacts that
    distribute fixed quantities of water to each of the member states--such as
    the Snake River Compact--assign administrative responsibility to the
    official in each state who is in charge of managing the public water
    supply.

    In contrast, some compacts involve more complex interstate matters that
    require greater coordination among states, such as the disposal of
    low-level radioactive waste. In such cases, states are more likely to
    delegate authority to an interstate agency--typically called a
    commission--that is created to administer and implement the compact's
    provisions.^1 The nature of each commission's authority varies and can
    range from advising states on interstate problems to regulating activities
    of mutual concern. In general, compact commissions consist of
    representatives of the member states, typically called commissioners. The
    commissioners are usually appointed by elected officials or serve by
    virtue of their elected position, such as governor, or their role as a
    federal, state, or local government official. For example, to administer
    the provisions of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, the states of
    California and Nevada created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA),
    which includes representatives from the two states and the federal
    government. Many compact commissions are funded, in whole or in part, by
    the member states. Although the federal government may provide grants or
    participate in some compact programs, compact commissions generally
    operate independently of the federal government. Since interstate compact
    commissions are neither federal in nature nor state in scope, they occupy
    what some have referred to as a "third tier" of government.

    ^1For purposes of this report, the term "commission" includes agencies,
    authorities, and boards created to administer interstate compacts.

    Because of your interest in congressionally approved interstate compacts^2
    that address environment and natural resource issues and, in particular,
    the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, this report describes (1) the
    approaches used to administer congressionally approved environment and
    natural resource compacts, including their organizational structure,
    powers and authorities, and mechanisms for resolving disputes and
    providing public accountability; (2) the extent to which concerns have
    been raised regarding the structure and governance of those compacts, like
    the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, that have commissions; and (3)
    specifically, how the structure and governance of TRPA compares to those
    of other similar compact commissions.

    To conduct this review, we identified and reviewed 59 congressionally
    approved interstate compacts that address environment and natural resource
    management issues, interviewed compact experts and officials, and surveyed
    compact commission officials on the approaches used to structure and
    govern their compacts and the extent to which concerns have been raised
    regarding these approaches. We surveyed officials from only 45 of the 46
    compacts that established commissions, because 1 commission was not yet
    operational at the time of our review. We received responses from 36 of
    the 45 compact commissions we surveyed, for a response rate of 80 percent.
    In addition, using the survey results, we identified 3 compact commissions
    that have functions similar to those of TRPA: the Columbia River Gorge
    Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Susquehanna River
    Basin Commission. To compare TRPA to these three commissions, we
    interviewed commission staff in Stateline, Nevada; White Salmon,
    Washington; West Trenton, New Jersey; and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In
    addition, we reviewed commission documents and activities, and interviewed
    compact stakeholders, including commission members; federal, state, and
    local government officials; environmentalists; and members of the business
    community, among others. See appendix I for additional details on our
    scope and methodology and appendix II for additional details on the 59
    congressionally approved environment and natural compacts we reviewed. A
    more complete summary of the results of our survey of compact commission
    officials can be viewed on our Web site at www.gao.gov in an
    electronic supplement that we are issuing concurrent with this report--
    [38]GAO-07-524SP . We conducted our review from April 2006 through March
    2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    ^2For purposes of this report, the phrase "congressionally approved
    interstate compacts" refers to compacts for which Congress provided
    consent through legislation.

    Results in Brief

    Most congressionally approved interstate compacts that address environment
    and natural resource issues have established commissions to administer the
    compact's provisions. Of the 59 compacts that we reviewed, 46 established
    interstate commissions, while the remaining 13 were administered by
    existing agencies or officials in the member states. Among the 46 compacts
    with commissions, we found variations in organizational structure, powers
    and authorities, and provisions for resolving disputes, but several
    similarities in how they provided for public accountability. For example,
    the number of commissioners ranged from 2 to 48, and some commissions
    included a representative of the federal government, while others did not.
    Additionally, some commissions had regulatory authority, while others were
    limited to more of an advisory role. For example, the Ohio River Valley
    Water Sanitation Commission has regulatory authority to set water
    pollution control standards for the Ohio River, while the Gulf States
    Marine Fisheries Commission is limited to making recommendations to help
    member states promote the conservation, development, and utilization of
    fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico. With regard to dispute
    resolution, although only 26 percent of the compacts with commissions
    specified ways to resolve disputes other than litigation, 36 percent of
    them had used processes such as arbitration, mediation, administrative
    appeals, and negotiations to resolve disputes. Compact commissions
    generally used similar means of providing public accountability. For
    example, almost all of the commissions had procedures in place, such as
    giving the public access to commission documents, holding public meetings,
    and allowing public input, to ensure public accountability, even when not
    required by their compact. For the 13 compacts that do not establish
    commissions, we found that their powers and authorities also varied. Eight
    of these compacts had authorized member states to develop regulations
    jointly to further the compact's objectives, while five required member
    states only to coordinate resources to meet the compact's goals. Compacts
    without commissions did not typically contain provisions addressing
    dispute resolution or public accountability, but their administering
    agencies or officials are subject to state requirements and procedures.
    Only 3 of the 13 compacts without commissions specified methods for
    resolving disputes, and one specified mechanisms for providing public
    accountability.

    Significant concerns about the structure and governance of interstate
    compact commissions have not been frequently raised. Specifically, less
    than half of the compact commissions that responded to our survey reported
    that concerns had been raised infrequently about the organizational
    structure and public accountability of their commissions, and about
    two-thirds of the commissions with authority to issue regulations reported
    that concerns had been infrequently raised about their regulatory
    authority. Concerns regarding organizational structure varied by
    commission and ranged from issues such as who should be represented on the
    commission to whether commissioners should be elected or appointed.
    Concerns regarding public accountability also varied, from issues such as
    whether the commission had adequate oversight to whether the commission
    was sufficiently independent of its member states. Concerns about the
    commissions' regulatory authority have generally focused on the extent of
    the commission's power, and were more frequently raised when the issues
    being addressed by the compact were highly controversial. Moreover, a
    number of compact officials believe that the concerns raised about the
    commission's structure and governance often reflected disagreements with
    specific commission actions or decisions, rather than general concerns
    about the commission's organizational structure, public accountability, or
    regulatory authority.

    TRPA's organizational structure and governance are generally similar to
    those of other interstate compact commissions with similar functions, but
    TRPA has greater land use planning authority. Specifically, we identified
    three interstate compact commissions that perform similar functions to
    TRPA--the Columbia River Gorge, Delaware River Basin, and Susquehanna
    River Basin Commissions. These commissions are similar to TRPA in that
    they have the authority to issue regulations and they have developed
    comprehensive management plans that address at least six of the following
    issues: land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public
    services and facilities, water pollution, flood control, and waste
    disposal. TRPA and the three other commissions have similar organizational
    structures, with each having appointed representatives, a staff, and
    advisory committees. However, the commissions differ in size, interests
    represented, and the role of the federal representative. As for
    governance, all four commissions generally use similar means, such as an
    administrative appeals process, to resolve disputes that may arise with
    those they regulate. In addition, all four commissions also use similar
    public accountability mechanisms, such as undergoing an annual financial
    audit, regularly reporting their activities to member states, and holding
    public meetings where the public can provide input. A major distinction
    between TRPA and the three other compact commissions is that TRPA has
    broad land use authority that extends to water, air, and other natural
    resources, as well as public health and safety, while the Columbia River
    Gorge Commission only regulates land use when it affects cultural,
    natural, recreational, or scenic resources, and decisions made by the
    Delaware River Basin and Susquehanna River Basin Commissions only
    indirectly affect land use.

    Background

    Interstate compacts are legal agreements between states that bind member
    states to their provisions in the same manner as contracts entered into by
    individuals or corporations. Traditionally, compacts were negotiated by
    special joint commissions appointed by the state governors. Increasingly,
    however, compacts have been formulated by interested groups of state
    officials or other stakeholders and then recommended to the state
    legislatures. In either case, each state legislature accepts the compact
    by enacting a law that adopts the terms of the agreement. When the
    required number of states have enacted such a law, the compact is formed.

    In cases where the compact affects the balance of power between the
    federal government and the states, the states must obtain the consent of
    Congress for the compact to be valid. Congress generally gives its consent
    in one of three ways: (1) after the fact, by passing legislation that
    specifically recognizes and consents to the compact as enacted by the
    states; (2) in advance, by passing legislation encouraging states to enter
    into a specified compact or compacts for specified purposes; or (3)
    implied after the fact, when actions by the states and the federal
    government indicate that Congress has granted its consent even in the
    absence of a specific legislative act. In addition, Congress may impose
    conditions as part of granting its consent, and it typically reserves the
    right to alter, amend, or repeal its consent. Any proposed amendment to a
    compact must follow the compact approval process, unless the compact
    specifies otherwise.

    The use of interstate compacts has changed over time in terms of number,
    subject matter, and scope. Of the 32 compacts enacted between 1789 and
    1920, most resolved boundary disputes between 2 neighboring states. As the
    twentieth century progressed, states increasingly used interstate compacts
    to address complex problems that were not confined to their borders, such
    as apportioning interstate waters, supervising out-of-state offenders
    under community supervision, and constructing and administering bridges
    and shared port facilities. According to the Council of State Governments,
    more than 200 interstate compacts exist nationwide, with each state
    belonging to an average of 25 compacts. Along with the increasing numbers
    and subjects covered, interstate compacts have also expanded their range
    of coverage from 2 states to as many as 50 and may also include the
    District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. territories, and Canadian
    provinces as signatories.

    Over one-third of the compacts that exist today deal with environment and
    natural resource issues. Although a large number of these compacts deal
    with water allocation, they address other subjects as well.

    Table 1: Environment and Natural Resource Compacts, by Subject Matter

                                                        Number with congressional
    Subject matter                            Number                  approval
    Water apportionment                           22                        22
    Water resources and flood control             12                         9
    Low-level radioactive waste disposal          12                        10
    Water pollution control                        7                         4
    Fisheries conservation                         6                         6
    Forest fire protection                         6                         4
    Conservation and environment (other than       5                         1
    water pollution control, fisheries
    conservation, and forest fire protection)
    Energy (other than low-level radioactive       4                         2
    waste disposal)
    Planning and development (land use             2                         1
    planning involving environment and
    natural resource protection)
    Total                                         76                        59

    Source: GAO analysis of Council of State Governments' data.

    In addition to addressing a variety of subjects, the scope of these
    environment and natural resource compacts ranges from 2 to as many as 30
    states, and includes, in some cases, the District of Columbia, Canadian
    provinces, or the United States as signatories. As table 1 shows, about
    three-fourths of these compacts have received congressional approval.

    Prior to the 1920s, existing agencies and officials within compact states
    routinely administered interstate compacts. However, as states began to
    jointly tackle issues of greater complexity and broader geographic scope,
    the use of interstate commissions gained popularity. The majority of the
    compacts enacted since 1970 have established interstate commissions. These
    commissions consist of appointed representatives of each compacting state,
    called commissioners, who are responsible for administering the compact's
    provisions. Additionally, commissions may employ technical and other staff
    to assist in the compact's administration. In some cases, commissions will
    hire an executive director who is responsible for administering the
    commission's daily operations in accordance with the commission's
    direction and policies. In addition, commissions may have advisory
    committees that study issues and make recommendations to the
    commissioners. These committees may be permanent or temporary in nature,
    depending on need.

    Most Environment and Natural Resource Compacts Are Administered by Commissions

    Of the 59 interstate compacts we reviewed, 46 established commissions to
    administer the compact's provisions, while the remaining 13 were
    administered by existing agencies or officials in the member states. Among
    the compacts with commissions, we found variations in organizational
    structure, powers and authorities, and provisions for resolving disputes,
    but similarities in how the compacts provided for public accountability.
    The 13 compacts without commissions also varied in powers and authorities.
    In addition, they generally did not contain provisions for alternative
    dispute resolution or public accountability, but their administering
    agencies or officials are subject to state requirements and procedures.

    Organizational Structure and Governance Generally Varied among Compacts
    Administered by Commissions

    The 46 compacts with commissions that we reviewed varied in organizational
    structure, such as the number of commissioners and staff; powers and
    authorities, including whether the compact granted advisory or regulatory
    authority; and the dispute resolution mechanisms provided as alternatives
    to litigation.^3 However, the compacts shared similarities in their
    approaches for providing public accountability.

      Organizational Structure

    The 46 compacts with commissions that we reviewed generally varied in
    organizational structure, including the composition and size of the
    commission, use of administrative staff, and use of advisory committees.

    Commission composition. The commissions established by the 46 compacts we
    reviewed varied in size and interests represented. In all cases, the
    commissioners were appointed to serve--generally by elected officials or
    by virtue of their state office, such as governor or head of a state
    natural resources department. However, the number of commissioners ranged
    from 2 to 48, with each state generally having an equal number of
    commissioners. For example, the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste
    Compact required that each of its three member states appoint one
    representative to the commission, while the New England Interstate Water
    Pollution Control Compact required that each of its seven member states
    appoint 5 commissioners. Depending on the compact, there were as few as 1
    and as many as 7 commissioners from each state. Of the 46 compacts, 15
    explicitly required member states to appoint commissioners to represent
    additional interests. For example, 11 compacts provided for local
    representation, 4 required the appointment of a knowledgeable citizen from
    each state, and 1 required the appointment of an industry representative
    from each state. In addition, 18 of the 46 compacts, such as the
    Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Compact, specified the number of
    commissioners from each state, but left it to each state to decide how to
    choose its commissioners.

    ^3One of the 46 commissions was not yet operational at the time of our
    review.

    Of the 46 compacts with commissions that we reviewed, 21 provided for a
    federal representative on the commission. For 16 of these compacts, the
    President appointed the federal representative; the other 5 compacts named
    an official of a specified federal agency, such as the Director of the
    U.S. Geological Survey. While nearly half of the compacts with commissions
    had federal representation, only 4 of these compacts--the Connecticut
    River Atlantic Salmon, the Delaware River Basin, the Susquehanna River
    Basin, and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts--explicitly gave the
    federal representative the power to vote on commission decisions or
    actions.

    Staff. Compacts also varied in their provisions for staff to conduct
    day-to-day operations and provide technical assistance to the commissions.
    Only 8 of the 46 compacts explicitly required that their commissions hire
    staff, an additional 34 compacts left it to the commissions' discretion to
    hire staff, and 4 compacts made no provisions for staff. In practice, we
    found that 67 percent of the commissions that responded to our survey
    reported having an administrative staff. Among these commissions, the
    number of full-time equivalent staff ranged from 1 to 85.

    Advisory committees. The way compacts provided for committees to advise
    the commission varied. Only 4 of the 46 compacts we reviewed expressly
    required their commissions to establish an advisory committee, while
    another 13 expressly authorized them. For example, the Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Compact required that its commission establish a
    permanent advisory committee to represent the interests of the commercial
    fishing industry on an ongoing basis, as well as short-term advisory
    committees to draft position papers on a specific commission issue, such
    as ecosystem management. In practice, however, about 75 percent of the
    commissions responding to our survey reported having at least one advisory
    committee, and about 56 percent of these commissions reported that members
    of the public served on at least one of their advisory committees.

      Powers and Authorities

    The powers and authorities granted to the compact commissions also varied.
    In some cases, the commission only had advisory authority. For example,
    the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission makes recommendations to its
    member states on the conservation, development, and utilization of fishery
    resources in the Gulf of Mexico, but it does not have the authority to
    implement its recommendations. In other cases, the compacts explicitly
    granted commissions the authority to issue regulations. For example, the
    Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission has the authority to set
    water pollution control standards for the Ohio River. We also found cases
    where the commissions had both advisory and regulatory authority. For
    example, the Delaware River Basin Commission studies and advises states on
    approaches to water management, but also regulates water quality and water
    supply. In some cases, we had difficulty determining from a compact's
    language whether the commission was advisory or regulatory in nature.
    However, over 55 percent of the commissions that responded to our survey
    reported that they had the authority to issue regulations, with 95 percent
    of these commissions reporting that they have sufficient authority to
    enforce the regulations they issue.

      Dispute Resolution

    The 46 compacts with commissions that we reviewed also differed in their
    provisions for resolving disputes among the compact states or between the
    commission and those it regulates. While compact disputes generally can be
    brought before a court for review, litigation can be expensive. Possible
    alternatives to litigation include the following:

               o Arbitration--a process by which the parties refer a dispute to
               an agreed-upon, independent third party for resolution.
               o Mediation--a process by which a neutral person facilitates
               discussion between the disputing parties to help them reach
               agreement.
               o Administrative appeals--a process by which an action of the
               commission can be appealed to the commission itself.
               o Negotiation--a process by which the parties attempt to reach
               agreement through discussion and compromise.

               Only 12 of the 46 compacts with commissions that we reviewed (26
               percent) specified alternative approaches for resolving disputes.
               Of these compacts, 9 made provisions for the use of arbitration, 2
               provided for negotiations, and 1 called for mediation. For
               example, the Klamath River Basin Compact--which manages water
               resources for irrigation, fish and wildlife protection, and
               domestic and industrial use, among other things--required that if
               the commission's two voting members failed to agree on any matter
               before the commission, the commission must refer the matter to an
               independent third party for resolution. However, while 12 compacts
               expressly mentioned the use of arbitration, mediation,
               administrative appeals, or negotiation for resolving disputes, 36
               percent of our survey respondents reported that they have used one
               or more of these dispute resolution mechanisms. Among these
               respondents, 7 had used mediation, 5 had used an administrative
               appeals process, 5 had used negotiations, and 1 had used
               arbitration.

    		     Public Accountability

               While compact commissions varied with respect to organizational
               structure, powers and a	uthorities, and methods for resolving
               disputes, they generally used similar approaches to provide
               accountability to the public, even when not required by their
               compact. For example, while only 18 of the 46 compacts expressly
               required that commission documents be made available to the
               public, all of the commissions that responded to our survey
               reported that they have given the public access to commission
               meeting minutes, and 94 percent reported that they also make
               available to the public documents used in preparation for
               commission meetings. Further, 94 percent of the survey respondents
               reported that they had established procedures--such as holding
               public meetings and allowing public input--to ensure public
               accountability. In addition, 78 percent of the commissions
               reported that they have conducted some form of public outreach.
               These commissions used various outreach approaches, such as
               meeting with stakeholders to discuss their needs and concerns,
               operating a commission Web site, distributing newsletters and
               press releases, holding symposiums, producing public service
               announcements, and making educational presentations to
               schoolchildren.

               In addition, 6 of the 46 compacts that established commissions
               explicitly required representatives from the public to sit on
               advisory committees. However, according to our survey responses,
               at least an additional 9 commissions have allowed representatives
               from the general public to serve on advisory committees, although
               they were not required to do so.^4

               Financial reporting by the compact commissions was frequently
               practiced as a means of providing accountability to both the
               public and member states. Among the 46 compacts administered by
               commissions, 25 required that the commission undergo an annual
               financial audit. Of the commissions responding to our survey, 86
               percent reported undergoing financial audits. Of the commissions
               that undergo financial audits, 90 percent told us that they
               undergo annual financial audits, with the rest undergoing
               financial audits somewhat less frequently. All of the commissions
               that undergo financial audits told us that they reported their
               audit results to the member states, and 71 percent of these
               commissions made their audits available to the public.

    		   Compacts without Commissions Varied in Their Powers and
    		   Authorities

               The 13 compacts administered by existing agencies or officials
               also had varied powers and authorities. Compacts administered by
               state agencies or officials contained few provisions for dispute
               resolution and accountability. However, these agencies and
               officials are required to follow state requirements.

    		     Powers and Authorities

               Eight of the 13 compacts administered by existing agencies or
               officials authorized member states to jointly develop regulations
               for achieving compact objectives, while 5 required member states
               only to coordinate resources to meet compact goals. In general,
               the 8 regulatory compacts required that the member states mutually
               consent to any regulations issued under the compact. For example,
               the Columbia River Compact mandated that laws and regulations for
               protecting fish in the Columbia River be created or amended only
               with the mutual consent of both states. The 5 compacts that called
               for coordination among member states typically called for either
               sharing expenses among the member states or joint oversight of the
               compact's subject matter. For example, the Middle Atlantic
               Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact requires member states
               to help each other in combating, controlling, or preventing forest
               fires.

    		     Dispute Resolution

               Only 3 of the 13 compacts administered by existing agencies or
               officials specified methods for resolving disputes. However, the
               state agencies and officials that administer these compacts are
               already subject to state dispute resolution requirements or
               procedures. One of the 3 compacts that specified methods for
               resolving disputes is the Colorado River Compact--a highly
               controversial water allocation compact--that gives the governors
               of the member states the authority to appoint individuals to
               consider and resolve certain conflicts that arise between member
               states regarding a compact issue. Similarly, the New
               Hampshire-Vermont Interstate Sewage and Waste Disposal Facilities
               Compact and the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate Public Water
               Supply Compact, which authorize municipalities to enter into
               agreements to establish joint waste facilities and public water
               supplies, respectively, require that these agreements include
               provisions for arbitration and dispute resolution.

    		     Public Accountability

               Of the 13 compacts administered by existing agencies or officials,
               only 1 contained any provision relating to public accountability.
               However, as with dispute resolution, the state agencies or
               officials that administer these compacts are already subject to
               state requirements for providing public accountability. The
               Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact, which provides for
               Maryland and West Virginia to jointly manage the natural resources
               of Jennings Randolph Lake, is the only compact administered by
               existing agencies that includes provisions for accountability. It
               called for the states to encourage the dissemination of "joint
               publications, press releases, or other public information."

    		   Significant Concerns about Compact Commissions� Structure and
    		   Governance Have Not Been Frequently Raised

               Interstate compact commissions reported that significant concerns
               about their structure and governance have rarely been raised.
               While almost two-thirds of the 36 commissions responding to our
               survey reported that significant concerns have been raised at
               least once about their commission's organizational structure,
               public accountability, or regulatory authority, none of the
               commissions reported that these concerns have been raised
               frequently. Moreover, a number of officials responding to our
               survey believed that these concerns often reflected disagreements
               with specific commission actions rather than general concerns
               about organizational structure, public accountability, or
               regulatory authority.

    		   Concerns about Organizational Structure

               Survey respondents reported that concerns about organizational
               structure have been raised infrequently. As shown in figure 1,
               less than half of the 36 compact commissions responding to our
               survey reported that significant concerns have been raised about
               their commission's structure or composition--with 13 commissions
               reporting such concerns as seldom and 4 reporting such concerns as
               occasional. We found no consistent theme among the concerns
               identified. Examples of concerns included whether the appropriate
               interests were represented on the commission, whether the balance
               of state and local interests on the commission was fair, where the
               commission should be located, and how many votes each state should
               have. Regarding concerns about the method of selecting
               commissioners, less than one-third of the 36 commissions reported
               that such concerns had been raised at all--with 7 reporting such
               concerns as seldom and 3 as occasional (see fig. 1). When concerns
               were identified, they also varied by commission and included, for
               example, whether commissioners should be directly elected to the
               commission and whether commission appointments were too political.

    ^4While 6 of the 46 compacts that established commissions explicitly
    required representatives from the public to sit on their advisory
    committees, only 3 of these compacts required that the commission actually
    establish an advisory committee. The other 3 compacts gave their
    commissions the authority to create one or more advisory committees, but
    did not require them to do so.

    Figure 1: Frequency of Concerns regarding Organizational Structure

    Note: Totals may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.

    Concerns about Public Accountability

    Survey respondents also reported that concerns about public accountability
    have been raised infrequently. As shown in figure 2, less than half of the
    36 compact commissions responding to our survey reported that significant
    concerns have been raised about their commission's public
    accountability--with 14 respondents reporting such concerns as seldom and
    2 reporting such concerns as occasional. Again, there was no consistent
    theme among the concerns identified. For example, 1 commission reported
    that a concern had been raised about whether the commission had adequate
    oversight, while another commission reported that concerns had been raised
    about whether the commission was sufficiently independent of its member
    states. Some concerns about public accountability have resulted in
    lawsuits. For example, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission was sued in
    2006 for allegedly failing to provide adequate notice of public hearings
    on proposed changes to its water regulations.^5

    5Complaint at 11, Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. The Susquehanna River Basin
    Commission, Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-02454 (C.D. Pa. 2006). This suit,
    which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
    Pennsylvania, was still pending at the time of our review.

    Figure 2: Frequency of Concerns regarding Public Accountability

    Note: The total does not equal 100 percent because of rounding.

    Concerns about Regulatory Authority

    Twenty of the 36 compact commissions responding to our survey reported
    that they have the authority to issue regulations. As shown in figure 3,
    over two-thirds of these commissions reported that significant concerns
    about their current regulatory authority have been raised
    infrequently--with 9 reporting such concerns as seldom and 5 as
    occasional. Although the specific concerns varied from commission to
    commission, the concerns often involved the scope of the commission's
    authority. For example, 1 commission reported that concerns had been
    raised about whether it had the authority to regulate certain types of
    water rights, while another commission reported that concerns had been
    raised about whether it had too much regulatory authority. Commissions
    have also been sued over the scope of their authority. For example, a
    group of landowners unsuccessfully sued the Columbia River Gorge
    Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture on a number of grounds,
    including that the commission's decision to deny the landowners'
    applications to develop their properties resulted in an illegal taking of
    private property under the U.S. Constitution.^6 Notably, survey responses
    indicated that concerns about regulatory authority were more frequently
    raised in cases where the compact had addressed highly controversial
    issues.

    Figure 3: Frequency of Concerns regarding Regulatory Authority

    Note: The total number of responses equals 20, because only 20 of the 36
    commissions responding to our survey reported that they had the authority
    to issue regulations.

    Concerns Have Reflected Disagreement with Commission Actions or Decisions

    A number of commission officials told us they believed that when concerns
    have been raised about a commission's structure and governance, they often
    reflected underlying disagreements with specific commission decisions or
    actions. Officials repeatedly reported that some of the concerns about
    organizational structure, public accountability, and regulatory authority
    were raised only when an individual objected to a specific commission
    decision or action. For example, an official from one commission believed
    that a concern raised about the commission's accountability to the public
    actually reflected an individual's anger over a particular commission
    decision, while an official from another commission stated that concerns
    about the methods used to select commissioners have been raised only when
    someone dislikes a particular regulation issued by the commission.
    Similarly, an official from a third commission stated that people have
    raised concerns about the commission's organizational structure and
    authority when they simply disliked the commission's actions and that such
    concerns arise as the commission deals with controversial or
    high-visibility issues.

    ^6Columbia Gorge United-Protecting People & Property v. Yeutter, 1990 WL
    357613, CV No. 88-1319-PA (D. Or. May 23, 1990), aff'd by 960 F.2d 110
    (9th Cir. 1992).

    While the Structure and Governance of TRPA Are Generally Similar to Those of
    Other Compact Commissions, Its Regulatory Authority Is Broader

    TRPA's organizational structure and governance are generally similar to
    those of three other interstate compact commissions with similar
    functions--the Columbia River Gorge, Delaware River Basin, and Susquehanna
    River Basin Commissions. However, TRPA has greater regulatory
    responsibility and more extensive land use planning authority than these
    commissions.

    Three Interstate Compact Commissions Perform Similar Functions to TRPA

    We identified three interstate compact commissions that perform similar
    functions to TRPA, including the Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC),
    the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), and the Susquehanna River
    Basin Commission (SRBC). TRPA is responsible for developing and
    implementing an environmental and land use plan to preserve the natural
    quality of the Lake Tahoe region (see fig. 4). The CRGC is responsible for
    developing and adopting a management plan that regulates, through land use
    ordinances, the development and use of various categories of land within
    the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (see fig. 4). Both the DRBC
    and the SRBC are responsible for multipurpose planning, development, and
    management of the water and water resources in the Delaware and
    Susquehanna River Basins, respectively (see fig. 5). (For more information
    on these compacts, see app. III.)

    Figure 4: Map of the United States Showing the Jurisdictions of TRPA and
    the CRGC

    Figure 5: Map of the United States Showing the Jurisdictions of the DRBC
    and the SRBC

    Like TRPA, these three commissions have the authority to issue
    regulations. Also, like TRPA, these three commissions have developed a
    comprehensive plan for achieving their compact's objectives. While their
    compact objectives differ, at least six of the issues addressed in their
    comprehensive plans are similar to those addressed in TRPA's plan,
    including land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public
    services and facilities, water pollution, flood control, and waste
    disposal. See table 2 for a comparison of issues addressed by the four
    management plans.

    Table 2: Comparison of Commission Management Plan Issues

                        Tahoe
                       Regional  Columbia    Delaware
                       Planning River Gorge River Basin  Susquehanna River Basin
    Issue            Agency  Commission  Commission         Commission
    Land use           x          x           x                  x
    Transportation     x          x
    Conservation       x          x           x                  x
    Recreation         x          x           x                  x
    Public services
    and facilities     x          x           x                  x
    Water pollution    x          x           x                  x
    Flood control      x                      x                  x
    Waste disposal     x          x

    Source: GAO.

    TRPA's Organizational Structure and Governance Are Generally Similar to Those of
    Three Other Compact Commissions

    TRPA and the three other compact commissions have similar organizational
    structures, but differ in size, composition, and role of the federal
    representative. In terms of governance, the four commissions also use
    similar means for resolving disputes and providing accountability.

      Organizational Structure

    TRPA and the three other commissions have similar organizational
    structures that consist of appointed commissioners, a staff, and advisory
    committees. However, commission composition differs in terms of size,
    interests represented, and role of the federal representative.

    Commission composition. TRPA's governing board is similar to those of the
    three other commissions in that it consists of appointed members,
    including a representative of the federal government. However, TRPA is
    more like the CRGC in terms of its size, interests represented, and role
    of the federal representative. Specifically, TRPA's governing board has 15
    members. California and Nevada each have 7 members, including 4 statewide
    and 3 local representatives, and the federal government has a
    representative.^7 All 7 California board members are appointed by elected
    officials. Four Nevada board members are appointed by elected officials, 2
    serve by virtue of their state office, and 1 is appointed at-large by the
    other Nevada members. The federal representative is appointed by the
    President. All board members, except the federal representative, can vote
    on matters before the commission. In comparison, the CRGC has 13 members,
    including 3 appointees of each governor, 1 appointee of each of the 6
    counties in the Scenic Area, and a federal representative who is a member
    of the U.S. Forest Service appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. As
    with TRPA, all of the CRGC's commissioners are voting members except the
    federal representative.

    The remaining two commissions are much smaller than TRPA. The DRBC and the
    SRBC have only 5 and 4 members, respectively, including a representative
    of the federal government. Unlike TRPA and the CRGC, each state has one
    commissioner--the governor or a designee. According to DRBC and SRBC
    officials, the designee is typically the head of the state's natural
    resources or environmental protection department. The federal
    representative is an officer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers appointed
    by the President. Unlike the federal representatives on TRPA and the CRGC,
    the federal representatives on the DRBC and the SRBC can vote on
    commission matters, because the United States is a party to the compacts.

    ^7Originally, the compact provided for an 11-member governing board, with
    each state having 3 local and 2 statewide representatives. However, the
    compact was amended in 1980 by adding 2 statewide representatives from
    each state, increasing the board's size to 15 members.

    Table 3: Summary of the Composition of TRPA and Three Other Compact
    Commissions

                                                         Delaware    Susquehanna
                       Tahoe Regional   Columbia River   River Basin River Basin
    Item            Planning Agency  Gorge Commission Commission  Commission
    Compacting      2 states         2 states         4 states    3 states and
    parties                                           and the     the United
                                                         United      States
                                                         States
    Number of       15               13               5           4
    commissioners
    State members   7 from each      6 from each      1 from each 1 from each
                       state, including state, including state       state
                       4 statewide and  3 state and 3
                       3 local          local appointees
                       representatives
    Method of       Appointed by     Appointed by     Appointed   Appointed by
    selection       elected          elected          by virtue   virtue of
                       officials or by  officials        of their    their state
                       virtue of their                   state       office
                       state office;                     office
                       at-large member
                       appointed by the
                       other Nevada
                       board members
    Special         All California   1 state          None        None
    requirements    state            representative
                       representatives  from each state
                       and at least 1   must reside in
                       from Nevada must the Scenic Area;
                       reside outside   local
                       the region;      representatives
                       local            must reside in
                       representatives  their respective
                       must reside in   counties
                       their appointing
                       body's
                       jurisdiction
    Federal member  Appointed by the An employee of   An officer  An officer
                       President        the Forest       of the U.S. of the U.S.
                                        Service          Army Corps  Army Corps
                                        appointed by the of          of Engineers
                                        Secretary of     Engineers   appointed by
                                        Agriculture      appointed   the
                                                         by the      President
                                                         President
    Role of federal Nonvoting        Nonvoting        Voting      Voting
    member

    Source: GAO analysis of interstate compacts.

    Staff. Like the three other commissions, TRPA employs an executive
    director who is responsible for administering the commission's day-to-day
    operations in accordance with the commissioners' direction and policies.
    The executive director is assisted by a staff of technical and other
    employees. At the time of our review, TRPA had the largest staff, with 85
    full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.^8 In comparison, the DRBC had 43
    FTEs, the SRBC had 35 FTEs, and the CRGC had 8.75 FTEs.

    Advisory committees. All four commissions rely on advisory committees to
    study issues and make recommendations to the commissioners. For example,
    TRPA has a 19-member advisory planning commission--composed of planning
    and natural resource management professionals in the region, as well as
    members of the public--that assists the governing board with technical and
    scientific issues dealing with land use planning. The advisory planning
    commission holds hearings, reviews proposed amendments to TRPA's plans and
    ordinances, and makes recommendations to the governing board. In addition,
    TRPA's governing board has formed four advisory committees, composed of
    board members, to review and make recommendations to the board on legal,
    operational, public education and outreach, and local government matters.
    Similar to TRPA, both the DRBC and the SRBC have established ongoing
    issue-related advisory committees that sometimes include members of the
    public. For example, the DRBC has established a flood advisory committee
    and the SRBC an agricultural water use committee. Moreover, officials of
    the CRGC, the DRBC, and the SRBC reported that their commissions set up
    short-term committees, which may include members of the public, to provide
    input on specific issues or concerns that arise.

    ^8An FTE generally consists of one or more employed individuals who
    collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore, either
    one full-time employee or two half-time employees equal one FTE.

      Dispute Resolution

    To avoid litigation, TRPA and the three other commissions generally use
    similar mechanisms for resolving disputes between the commission and those
    it regulates. These mechanisms include administrative appeals, mediation,
    and negotiation. Specifically, TRPA, like the three other compact
    commissions, has an administrative appeals process that allows individuals
    to appeal a final action of the executive director to the governing board
    without proceeding directly to court. In addition, TRPA, like the CRGC and
    the DRBC, also uses mediation as an alternative process for resolving
    disputes. However, only the CRGC explicitly provides for mediation as part
    of its administrative appeals process. Lastly, TRPA, like the CRGC and the
    SRBC, uses negotiation to resolve cases involving noncompliance with its
    regulations.

      Public Accountability

    In addition to using similar mechanisms for resolving disputes, the four
    commissions use similar mechanisms to help ensure accountability. Some
    mechanisms serve to help ensure accountability and transparency of
    commission decisions, while others provide financial accountability.
    Generally, all four commissions:

               o Report their activities to state or federal agencies or
               officials. TRPA, like the CRGC and the SRBC, regularly reports to
               its member states' budget committees during its budget cycles.
               According to TRPA and CRGC officials, TRPA and the CRGC have also
               been required to report to state legislative oversight committees.
               Both the DRBC and the SRBC are required by their compacts to
               prepare an annual report to the legislative bodies of their member
               states. In contrast, TRPA and the CRGC are not required by their
               compacts to issue an annual report. In addition to their regular
               reporting, all four commissions report to state or federal
               agencies or officials when requested.
               o Conduct periodic progress reviews. As required by their
               compacts, all four commissions conduct periodic reviews of their
               progress toward meeting compact objectives and make the results
               available to the states and the public. Specifically, TRPA
               assesses its progress toward achieving the goals of its
               comprehensive plan every 5 years and issues a report. The CRGC
               conducts a similar assessment every 10 years. The DRBC evaluates
               its progress toward its strategic plan every year, and the SRBC
               does so from time to time, but not according to a set schedule.

               o Undergo state evaluations of their performance. TRPA, like the
               CRGC and the DRBC, undergoes state evaluations of its performance.
               However, such evaluations do not occur on a regular basis. The
               most recent TRPA evaluation occurred in 2004, the CRGC in 2003,
               and the DRBC in 2006. While no member state has evaluated the
               SRBC's performance, officials reported that state member
               representatives have on occasion audited the commission's
               financial records.

               o Make commission meetings and records available to the public.
               All four commissions hold meetings that the public can attend, and
               provide opportunities for the public to provide input into
               decision making. They also make commission records available to
               the public, such as commission meeting minutes and records of
               individual members' votes, enabling the states and the public to
               hold individual commissioners accountable for their decisions.

               o Conduct public outreach. All four commissions use various
               approaches to conduct public outreach, such as press releases,
               commission Web sites, workshops, presentations, newsletters, and
               speakers' bureaus.
               o Undergo annual financial audits. All four commissions are
               audited annually and the results are presented to each commission
               in a public meeting. Such audits are required for the CRGC, the
               DRBC, and the SRBC by their compacts. In the case of the DRBC and
               the SRBC, the audits must be performed by third parties.

               o Submit grant reports. All four commissions submit reports to the
               appropriate state and federal agencies, as required by the
               agencies, for grant monies received.

    		   TRPA Has More Extensive Land Use Planning Authority than the Three
    		   Other Commissions

               While all four commissions have the authority to adopt and enforce
               regulations, a major distinction between TRPA and the three other
               compact commissions is that TRPA has broad land use planning
               authority that requires it to address a wide range of
               environmental issues. Specifically, under its compact, TRPA is
               required to adopt environmental standards to protect the natural
               environment and to maintain public health and safety within the
               Tahoe region. The nine standards adopted by TRPA address air
               quality, water quality, soil conservation, wildlife habitat, fish
               habitat, vegetation preservation, noise, recreation, and scenic
               resources. After setting the standards, TRPA was required to adopt
               a regional plan and ordinances to achieve and maintain the
               standards. The ordinances were required to contain, at minimum,
               standards for water purity and clarity; subdivision; zoning; tree
               removal; solid waste disposal; sewage disposal; landfills;
               excavations; cuts and grading; piers, harbors, breakwaters or
               channels, and other shoreline developments; waste disposal in
               shoreline areas; waste disposal from boats; mobile home parks;
               house relocation; outdoor advertising; flood plain protection;
               soil and sedimentation control; air pollution; and watershed
               protection. Further, these ordinances preempt the regulations of
               local and state agencies in the region, unless such regulations
               are stricter, and must be interpreted consistently with federal
               laws that may also apply within the Lake Tahoe region. Any project
               that may substantially affect the land, water, or any other
               natural resources of the Lake Tahoe region must comply with
               applicable provisions of the compact, the regional plan,
               ordinances, and rules and regulations.

               In comparison to TRPA, the CRGC is more limited in its land use
               planning authority. Whereas TRPA is broadly responsible for how
               and to what extent land--as well as water, air, and other natural
               resources--is used within the region, the CRGC only regulates the
               use of land when it affects cultural, natural, recreational, or
               scenic resources. For example, unlike TRPA, the CRGC cannot
               regulate land use for public health and safety, such as natural
               hazards, or for noise. Further, the CRGC can set and enforce
               standards only when a county fails to enact land use ordinances
               consistent with the commission's management plan, and only one of
               the six counties in the Scenic Area has failed to do so. In
               contrast, neither the DRBC nor the SRBC has regulatory authority
               over land use; instead, local jurisdictions have such authority.
               However, the decisions of the DRBC and the SRBC, which both
               regulate water consumption and withdrawal, indirectly affect land
               use because the water withdrawal requirements each commission sets
               to manage water resources in its respective basin can influence
               how land can be used.

               As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
               contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
               until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send
               copies of this report to interested congressional committees. We
               will also provide copies to others upon request. In addition, the
               report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
               http://www.gao.gov .

               If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
               contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov . Contact
               points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
               Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
               contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

               Anu K. Mittal
    		   Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    		   Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

               Our review focused on congressionally approved interstate compacts
               that address environment and natural resource issues.
               Specifically, we were asked to determine (1) the approaches used
               to administer congressionally approved environment and natural
               resource compacts, including their organizational structure,
               powers and authorities, and mechanisms for resolving disputes and
               providing public accountability; (2) the extent to which concerns
               have been raised regarding the structure and governance of those
               compacts, like the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, that have
               commissions; and (3) specifically, how the structure and
               governance of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) compares
               to those of other similar compact commissions.

               To determine the approaches used to administer congressionally
               approved interstate compacts that address environment and natural
               resource issues, we used Interstate Compacts & Agencies 2003, a
               directory compiled by the Council of State Governments, and
               prepared a list of 76 such compacts.^1 From this list, we
               identified and reviewed 59 compacts with congressional approval.
               We also obtained and reviewed relevant compact documents, such as
               bylaws, rules of procedure, and management plans, for information
               on the compact's organizational structure, powers and authorities,
               and mechanisms for resolving disputes and providing public
               accountability. In addition, we developed and distributed a
               Web-based survey to officials from the 45 compacts with an
               operational commission to obtain additional information on the
               structure and governance of their compacts, as well as the extent
               to which significant concerns have been raised regarding
               commission structure or composition, method of selecting
               commissioners, current regulatory authority, and public
               accountability.^2

               The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
               nonsampling error. For example, differences in how a particular
               question is interpreted, the sources of information available to
               respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can
               introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. Therefore,
               we included steps in developing and administering the survey for
               the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, we
               pretested the survey with three compact commission officials and
               used their feedback to refine the survey. Also, to reduce survey
               nonresponse, we sent e-mail reminders and conducted follow-up
               telephone calls with nonrespondents. Overall, officials from 36 of
               the 45 compacts in our sampling frame responded to our survey, for
               a response rate of 80 percent. Where necessary, we conducted
               follow-up telephone interviews with commission officials to
               clarify survey responses and obtain additional information on the
               concerns raised regarding their commission's structure and
               governance.

    ^1This directory is the most recent compilation of interstate compacts
    available.

    ^2The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact established a commission,
    but at the time of our review, the commission was not yet operational.

               In addition to our survey, we contacted officials of compacts
               without commissions to obtain information on the administration of
               these compacts.

               To determine the extent to which concerns have been raised
               regarding the structure and governance of compacts with
               commissions, we used the results of our survey of compact
               commission officials to identify commissions where significant
               concerns about commission composition, method of selecting
               commissioners, current regulatory authority, and public
               accountability have been raised. We conducted follow-up interviews
               with commission officials to obtain additional information on the
               nature and frequency of these concerns. We also reviewed relevant
               documents, such as studies, news articles, and court cases for
               information on concerns. We also interviewed interstate compact
               experts to obtain their views on issues related to the
               organizational structure, authority, and public accountability of
               compact commissions.

               To determine how TRPA compares to other interstate compact
               commissions, we used the results of our survey of compact
               commission officials to identify commissions that are similar to
               TRPA. The criteria for selecting similar commissions included (1)
               having the authority to issue regulations and (2) having a plan
               for achieving the compact's objectives that addresses at least six
               of the following issues: land use, transportation, conservation,
               recreation, public services and facilities, water pollution, flood
               control, and waste disposal. We identified three commissions that
               met these criteria--the Columbia River Gorge Commission, the
               Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Susquehanna River Basin
               Commission. To obtain information on each of these commission's
               structure and governance, we obtained and reviewed relevant
               documents, such as compact plans, commission meeting minutes,
               reports, and news articles. We interviewed commission staff in
               Stateline, Nevada; White Salmon, Washington; West Trenton, New
               Jersey; and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and attended meetings of
               TRPA, the Columbia River Gorge Commission, and the Nevada
               legislative oversight committee on TRPA. In addition, we
               interviewed compact stakeholders, such as commissioners; federal,
               state, and local government officials; environmentalists; business
               community members; and representatives of groups regulated by the
               commissions to obtain their views on the organizational structure
               and governance of their commissions.

               We conducted our work from April 2006 through March 2007 in
               accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    		   Appendix II: Descriptions of Interstate Compacts Included in Our
    		   Review

               This appendix provides information on the 59 congressionally
               approved environment and natural resource compacts that we
               included in our review.

    Table 4: Congressionally Approved Environment and Natural Resource
    Compacts

    Compact                  Members         Description
    Appalachian States       4 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Compact                            radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Arkansas River Basin     2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    Compact of 1970                          Arkansas River Basin and creates
                                                a commission to administer the
                                                agreement, encourage pollution
                                                abatement programs, and
                                                facilitate cooperation for total
                                                development and management of
                                                water resources in the river
                                                basin.
    Arkansas River Compact   2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    of 1949                                  Arkansas River and establishes an
                                                administration as the supervising
                                                agency.
    Arkansas River Compact   2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    of 1965                                  Arkansas River Basin, establishes
                                                a commission to administer the
                                                agreement, and encourages further
                                                pollution-abatement programs.
    Atlantic States Marine   15 states       Establishes a commission to
    Fisheries Compact                        promote better utilization of
                                                fisheries along the Atlantic
                                                seaboard.
    Bear River Compact       3 states        Apportions the waters of the Bear
                                                River and establishes a
                                                commission to administer the
                                                agreement. Also allocated new
                                                blocks of water for future
                                                development in the three member
                                                states.
    Belle Fourche River      2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    Compact                                  Belle Fourche River with
                                                particular emphasis on
                                                administering public water
                                                supplies in the two member
                                                states.
    Big Blue River Compact   2 states        Establishes a commission to
                                                promote interstate comity and
                                                equitably apportion the waters of
                                                the Big Blue River Basin to
                                                promote orderly development of
                                                water resources and to continue
                                                active water pollution abatement
                                                programs.
    Canadian River Compact   3 states        Establishes a commission to
                                                apportion the waters of the
                                                Canadian River in New Mexico,
                                                Oklahoma, and Texas, and to
                                                perform all functions required by
                                                the compact.
    Central Interstate       4 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Compact                            radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Central Midwest          2 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Compact                            radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Colorado River Compact   7 states        Apportions the waters of the
                                                Colorado River Basin.
    Columbia River Compact   2 states        Provides for the regulation,
                                                preservation, and protection of
                                                fish in the waters of the
                                                Columbia River.
    Columbia River Gorge     2 states        Establishes a regional agency to
    Compact                                  govern the planning and
                                                development of the area
                                                designated by the Columbia River
                                                Gorge National Scenic Area Act.
                                                Powers include disapproving
                                                county land use ordinances that
                                                are inconsistent with the area's
                                                management plan and enacting
                                                ordinances setting standards for
                                                using nonfederal land within the
                                                scenic area.
    Connecticut River        3 states        Promotes the restoration of
    Atlantic Salmon Compact                  anadromous Atlantic salmon by
                                                developing a joint interstate
                                                program for stocking, protection,
                                                management, research, and
                                                regulation.
    Connecticut River Valley 3 states        Establishes a commission to
    Flood Control Compact                    provide for financial
                                                reimbursement by downstream
                                                states for economic losses to
                                                political subdivisions in which
                                                flood control reservoirs are
                                                located.
    Costilla Creek Compact   2 states        Apportions the waters of Costilla
                                                Creek and creates the necessary
                                                administrative structure. Amended
                                                in 1963 to perfect further
                                                utilization of interstate waters.
    Delaware River Basin     4 states & U.S. Establishes a commission as a
    Compact                                  regional multipurpose water
                                                resources regulatory agency.
    Great Lakes Basin        8 states        Establishes a commission to
    Compact                                  advise and make recommendations
                                                to the member states concerning
                                                regional water resources matters.
    Gulf States Marine       5 states        Establishes a commission to
    Fisheries Compact                        promote the better utilization of
                                                the fisheries of the seaboard of
                                                the Gulf of Mexico by developing
                                                a joint program for promoting and
                                                protecting such fisheries and
                                                preventing the physical waste of
                                                the fisheries from any cause.
    Interstate Compact to    30 states       Establishes a commission to study
    Conserve Oil and Gas                     and make recommendations about
                                                energy efficiency that would help
                                                member states' economies and
                                                encourage energy independence.
    Jennings Randolph Lake   2 states        Provides for concurrent
    Project Compact                          jurisdiction among West Virginia,
                                                Maryland, and the U.S. Army Corps
                                                of Engineers to enforce civil and
                                                criminal laws of these states
                                                concerning natural resources,
                                                boating, and other regulations
                                                over the land and waters of the
                                                Jennings Randolph Lake Project.
    Klamath River Basin      2 states        Establishes a commission to
    Compact                                  promote comprehensive
                                                development, conservation, and
                                                control of the resources of the
                                                Klamath River.
    La Plata River Compact   2 states        Apportions the waters of the La
                                                Plata River and creates a
                                                commission to administer the
                                                compact.
    Merrimack River Flood    2 states        Establishes a commission to
    Control Compact                          coordinate flood control planning
                                                and water resource management in
                                                the basin of the Merrimack River
                                                and its tributaries.
    Middle Atlantic Forest   7 states        Provides mutual assistance in
    Fire Protection Compact                  forest fire protection and
                                                control.
    Midwest Interstate       6 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Compact                            radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    New England Interstate   7 states        Establishes a commission to
    Water Pollution Compact                  coordinate the water pollution
                                                control activities of the
                                                signatory states as they pertain
                                                to the waters of the compact
                                                area. Other activities include
                                                assurance of water quality
                                                planning and standards in the
                                                compact area, improving
                                                groundwater program coordination,
                                                and distributing public-oriented
                                                information addressing current
                                                environmental issues.
    New Hampshire-Vermont    2 states        Authorizes local governments in
    Interstate Public Water                  New Hampshire and Vermont to
    Supply Compact                           enter into agreements for jointly
                                                erecting and maintaining public
                                                water supply facilities.
    New Hampshire-Vermont    2 states        Authorizes local governments and
    Interstate Sewage and                    sewage districts in New Hampshire
    Waste Disposal                           and Vermont to engage in programs
    Facilities Compact                       for abatement of pollution
                                                through joint facilities for the
                                                disposal of sewage and other
                                                waste products.
    Northeast Interstate     3 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Management Compact                 radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Northeastern Forest Fire 7 states, 1     Establishes a commission to
    Protection Compact       national        promote effective prevention and
                                forest, &3      control of forest fires in the
                                provinces       New England states, New York, and
                                                adjoining Canadian provinces.
    Northwest Compact on     8 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Management                         radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Ohio River Valley Water  8 states        Establishes a commission for the
    Sanitation Compact                       purpose of maintaining waters in
                                                the river basin in a satisfactory
                                                condition, available for use as
                                                public and industrial water
                                                supply after reasonable
                                                treatment, suitable for
                                                recreational use, and capable of
                                                maintaining healthy aquatic
                                                communities.
    Pacific Marine Fisheries 5 states        Establishes a commission to
    Compact                                  promote the conservation,
                                                development, and management of
                                                Pacific coast fishery resources
                                                through coordinated regional
                                                research, monitoring, and
                                                utilization.
    Pecos River Compact      2 states        Establishes a commission to
                                                administer the compact and
                                                apportion the waters of the Pecos
                                                River.
    Potomac River Compact of 2 states        Establishes a commission to
    1958                                     conserve and improve fishing
                                                resources in the tidewater
                                                portion of the Potomac River.
    Potomac Valley Compact   3 states, D.C., Creates a conservancy district
                                & U.S.          and establishes a commission to
                                                cooperatively preserve water
                                                quality and to conserve water and
                                                related land resources of the
                                                Potomac River Basin.
    Red River Compact        4 states        Provides for the equitable
                                                apportionment of the waters and
                                                tributaries of the Red River.
    Republican River Compact 3 states        Establishes an agency to provide
                                                for the most efficient use of
                                                basin waters for multiple
                                                purposes and to provide for the
                                                equitable division of water.
    Rio Grande Compact       3 states        Establishes a commission to
                                                administer the compact and
                                                apportion water.
    Rocky Mountain Low-Level 3 states        Establishes a commission to
    Radioactive Waste                        manage and dispose of low-level
    Compact                                  radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Sabine River Compact     2 states        Establishes a commission to
                                                apportion the waters of the
                                                Sabine River and to plan,
                                                develop, and conserve the water
                                                resources of the river basin.
    Snake River Compact      2 states        Apportions the waters of the
                                                Snake River.
    South Central Forest     5 states        Provides mutual aid in forest
    Fire Protection Compact                  fire protection and control among
                                                the states in the south central
                                                area.
    South Platte River       2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    Compact                                  South Platte River.
    Southeast Interstate     7 states        Establishes a commission to
    Low-Level Radioactive                    manage and dispose of low-level
    Waste Compact                            radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Southeastern Forest Fire 10 states       Provides mutual aid in forest
    Protection Compact                       fire prevention and control among
                                                states in the southeastern area.
    Southern Compact         16 states       Provides for regional cooperation
                                                in the proper utilization of
                                                energy and environmental
                                                resources in the southern states.
    Southwestern Low-Level   4 states        Establishes a commission to
    Radioactive Waste                        manage and dispose of low-level
    Disposal Compact                         radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Susquehanna River Basin  3 states & U.S. Establishes a federal-interstate
    Compact                                  administrative commission to
                                                engage in comprehensive planning,
                                                development, and management of
                                                water and related resources of
                                                the Susquehanna River Basin.
    Tahoe Regional Planning  2 states        Establishes a regional planning
    Compact                                  agency with power to adopt and
                                                enforce a regional plan of
                                                resource conservation and
                                                development and to exercise
                                                various environmental controls
                                                over the Tahoe Basin. Amended in
                                                1980 to require adoption of
                                                environmental threshold
                                                capacities for the Tahoe Basin.
    Texas Low-Level          2 states        Establishes a commission to
    Radioactive Waste                        manage and dispose of low-level
    Disposal Compact                         radioactive waste generated
                                                within member states' borders.
    Thames River Flood       2 states        Establishes a commission to
    Control Compact                          administer the compact and
                                                promote the cooperation in flood
                                                control and in the use of water
                                                resources of the Thames River
                                                Basin.
    Tri-State Sanitation     3 states        Creates a commission to promote
    Compact                                  water pollution abatement and
                                                control within the tidal and
                                                coastal waters in the adjacent
                                                portions of Connecticut, New
                                                Jersey, and New York. Since 1962,
                                                the commission has served as the
                                                coordinating and planning agency
                                                for air quality control within
                                                the tristate boundary area.
    Upper Colorado River     5 states        Establishes a commission to
    Basin Compact                            administer apportionment of the
                                                waters of the Upper Colorado
                                                River Basin System and to promote
                                                agricultural and industrial
                                                development.
    Upper Niobrara River     2 states        Apportions the waters of the
    Compact                                  Upper Niobrara River Basin and
                                                the ground waters common to
                                                Nebraska and Wyoming.
    Wheeling Creek Watershed 2 states        Establishes a commission for the
    Protection and Flood                     purpose of administering programs
    Prevention District                      of flood control and preservation
    Compact                                  of natural resources and
                                                recreational facilities in the
                                                Wheeling Creek watershed.
    Yellowstone River        3 states        Establishes a commission to
    Compact                                  apportion the waters of the
                                                Yellowstone River.

    Sources: The Council of State Governments' Interstate Compacts & Agencies
    2003 and GAO analysis.

    ppendix III: Descriptions of TRPA and Three Selected Compact Commissions

    This appendix describes the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and
    three compact commissions that perform similar functions to TRPA.

    Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    Lake Tahoe is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the border of
    California and Nevada (see fig. 6). Approximately two-thirds of the lake
    lies in California and one-third in Nevada. Lake Tahoe is about 22 miles
    long and 12 miles wide and has a surface area of 191 square miles. With an
    average surface elevation of 6,225 feet above sea level, Lake Tahoe is the
    highest lake of its size in the United States. The lake, which is known
    for its exceptional purity and clarity, has been called a national
    treasure.

    Figure 6: Map and Photographs of the Lake Tahoe Region

    Reports of Lake Tahoe's beauty did not go unnoticed. By the turn of the
    twentieth century, the lake had become a summer resort, primarily for the
    wealthy. Following World War II, the Tahoe region experienced rapid growth
    with the availability of modern snow removal equipment, which enabled the
    states to keep the highways into Lake Tahoe open during the winter months,
    coupled with the establishment of year-round casinos in Nevada and the
    1960 Winter Olympic Games in nearby Squaw Valley, which further stimulated
    development of the winter sports industry. Postwar affluence and increased
    leisure time, along with rapid population growth in urban centers in
    northern California, resulted in a large increase in the number of
    tourists and seasonal residents at Lake Tahoe. In response to growing
    concerns about the impact of development on Lake Tahoe and its
    environment--particularly a proposal for a four-lane freeway with a bridge
    over Lake Tahoe's famed Emerald Bay, the states of California and Nevada
    negotiated a bistate compact that created a regional planning agency to
    oversee development at Lake Tahoe. Congress gave its consent to the
    compact in 1969.^1

    The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact established the Tahoe Regional
    Planning Agency (TRPA) to administer the compact. It also created a
    governing board that, according to TRPA officials, functioned like a
    regional planning board. The majority of the board members were local
    residents. Project approval required a majority of votes from each state.
    Further, the compact had a provision that if a project was not acted upon
    within 60 days, the project would automatically be deemed approved. Under
    this provision, development continued unchecked, and the compact was
    amended and ratified by Congress in 1980 to give more control to statewide
    rather than local representatives and to eliminate the 60-day provision.^2

    The compact, as amended, grants TRPA the authority to establish
    environmental quality standards, called thresholds, and to adopt and
    enforce a regional plan and ordinances for achieving and maintaining the
    standards while providing opportunities for orderly growth and development
    consistent with the standards.

    Columbia River Gorge Commission

    The Columbia River Gorge is a canyon up to 4,000 feet deep that stretches
    for over 85 miles as the Columbia River cuts through the Cascade
    Mountains, forming the boundary of the states of Washington and Oregon
    (see fig. 7). Because of its scenic beauty, abundant natural resources,
    and multicultural history, the Columbia River Gorge has been called a
    national treasure. In addition, the gorge provides many recreational
    opportunities--such as fishing, hiking, rock climbing, and world-class
    windsurfing--that attract millions of visitors a year.

    ^1Pub. L. No. 91-148, 83 Stat. 360 (1969).

    ^2Pub. L. No. 96-551, 94 Stat. 3233 (1980).

    Figure 7: Map and Photographs of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
    Area

    The completion of a highway along the Columbia River in 1915 opened up the
    gorge to recreation and stimulated growth on both sides of the river. By
    the 1930s, development impacts on the gorge were becoming a source of
    concern and, by the 1950s, both Oregon and Washington had created
    individual gorge commissions. However, their effectiveness became limited
    by inadequate funding, lack of authority, and opposition from various
    sources. In 1980, an attempt to build a subdivision in Skamania County,
    Washington, across the Columbia River from Multnomah Falls, one of
    Oregon's premier tourist attractions, provided the catalyst to find
    permanent protection for the gorge's natural resources, and, in 1986,
    Congress passed the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.^3 The
    Scenic Area, which totals about 292,500 acres, stretches for 85 miles on
    either side of the Columbia River and includes portions of three counties
    in Oregon and three counties in Washington.

    The purpose of the Scenic Area Act is to (1) establish a national scenic
    area to protect and provide for the enhancement of the gorge's scenic,
    cultural, recreational, and natural resources and (2) protect and support
    the economy of the Columbia River Gorge area by encouraging growth in
    urban areas and allowing economic development that is consistent with the
    first purpose. The act authorized Oregon and Washington to enter into a
    compact that would create a regional agency known as the Columbia River
    Gorge Commission and required that the commission carry out its functions
    and responsibilities in accordance with the compact and the act. These
    functions and responsibilities included, among others, adopting a
    management plan for the Scenic Area, administering the plan, reviewing the
    plan periodically, and amending it as necessary.

    Delaware River Basin Commission

    The Delaware River Basin consists of 13,539 square miles, draining parts
    of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware (see fig. 8). Nearly
    15 million people rely on the waters of the basin for drinking and
    industrial use, including 7 million people in the New York City area and
    northern New Jersey who live outside the basin. New York City gets nearly
    half of its water from three large reservoirs located on the tributaries
    to the Delaware, and Philadelphia gets 100 percent of its water supply
    directly from the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. In addition, the
    Delaware River Port Complex (including docking facilities in Pennsylvania,
    New Jersey, and Delaware) is the largest freshwater port in the world.

    ^3Pub. L. No. 99-663, 100 Stat. 4274 (1986).

    Figure 8: Map and Photographs of the Delaware River Basin

    In 1954, the United States Supreme Court resolved years of interstate
    conflict over water rights by apportioning the waters of the Delaware
    River among the four states and New York City. In doing so, the Court did
    not guarantee a final apportionment of water resources, but allowed the
    parties to return to court if circumstances changed. Instead of risking
    future litigation, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and the
    United States created the Delaware River Basin Compact to provide a
    unified approach to managing the river system without regard to political
    boundaries. Congress granted its consent to the agreement in 1961.^4

    The compact created the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to
    administer its provisions. The DRBC was given broad authority to plan,
    regulate, and coordinate management of the basin's waters. The commission
    regulates water supply allocation and water quality protection and has the
    authority to issue pollution control standards. In addition, the
    commission, acting on information from its advisory committees, makes
    recommendations to its member states on issues such as toxic pollutants,
    water quality, flooding, and flow management.

    Susquehanna River Basin Commission

    The Susquehanna River is the nation's 16th largest river, originating near
    Cooperstown, New York, and emptying into the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de
    Grace, Maryland (see fig. 9). Along with its tributaries, the river drains
    27,510 square miles, an area nearly the size of South Carolina. It is also
    the largest river lying entirely in the United States that flows into the
    Atlantic Ocean, and it provides 50 percent of the fresh water entering
    into the Chesapeake Bay.

    ^4Pub. L. No. 87-328, 75 Stat. 688 (1961).

    Figure 9: Map and Photographs of the Susquehanna River Basin

    New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the United States created the
    Susquehanna River Basin Compact to plan and manage the development of the
    basin's water resources, among other purposes. The compact was modeled
    after the Delaware River Basin Compact. The compact received congressional
    consent in 1970.^5 However, unlike the Delaware compact, which was created
    after its member states had litigated before the Supreme Court over water
    distributions, the Susquehanna compact was created to avoid such a dispute
    by providing for interstate coordination of efforts to develop and
    administer the water resources of the river basin.

    The compact established the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) to
    administer its provisions. The SRBC regulates water withdrawals,
    diversions, and releases, and is authorized to issue water quality
    standards and enforce those standards. The commission also has established
    several permanent advisory committees that develop recommendations for
    member states to consider on a variety of issues, including water
    resources management, water quality, agricultural water use, and drought
    management. In addition, the commission establishes short-term committees
    as specific needs dictate.

    ^5Pub. L. No. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 (1970).

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov .

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the contact named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant
    Director; Fatema Choudhury; Christopher Ferencik; Katherine Freeman; Susan
    Malone; Roderick Moore; and Tama Weinberg made key contributions to this
    report. Also contributing to this report were Kevin Bray, Thomas James,
    Alison O'Neill, and John Smale, Jr.

    (360680)

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
    newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
    fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-519 .

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Anu MIttal at (202) 512-9846 or
    mittala@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [49]GAO-07-519 , a report to congressional requesters

    April 2007

    INTERSTATE COMPACTS

    An Overview of the Structure and Governance of Environment and Natural
    Resource Compacts

    Interstate compacts are legal agreements between states that are designed
    to resolve concerns that transcend state lines, such as allocating
    interstate waters. While some compacts assign their administration to
    existing state agencies, compacts requiring greater coordination among
    states may establish an interstate agency, typically called a commission,
    to administer their provisions.

    Congress must give its consent to compacts that affect the balance of
    power between the states and the federal government. An example of a
    congressionally approved environment and natural resource compact is the
    Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, which created the Tahoe Regional Planning
    Agency (TRPA) to administer its provisions. For such compacts, GAO
    determined (1) the organizational structures, powers and authorities, and
    dispute resolution and public accountability mechanisms; (2) the extent to
    which concerns have been raised about the structure and governance of
    compacts that have commissions; and (3) how the structure and governance
    of TRPA compares to those of other similar compact commissions.

    GAO reviewed 59 congressionally approved compacts and surveyed those 45
    that had commissions. To view selected results from GAO's survey of
    interstate compact commission officials, go to
    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-524SP.

    Forty-six of the 59 congressionally approved environment and natural
    resource compacts that GAO reviewed had established interstate commissions
    to administer the compact, while the remainder relied on existing state
    agencies. The 46 compacts with commissions varied in their organizational
    structure, powers and authorities, and means of resolving disputes, but
    were similar in how they ensured public accountability. For example,
    commission size ranged from 2 to 48 members, and some commissions had
    regulatory authority, while others had only advisory authority. Twenty-six
    percent of the compacts had provisions for resolving disputes. However,
    about 36 percent of the commissions responding to GAO's survey reported
    that they had used means other than litigation to resolve disputes.
    Significantly more, about 94 percent, of the commissions reported having
    procedures for ensuring public accountability, such as holding public
    meetings and allowing public input. For the 13 compacts that did not have
    commissions, GAO found variations in their powers and authorities, and few
    of these compacts provided mechanisms for dispute resolution or public
    accountability.

    Interstate compact commissions reported that significant concerns about
    their structure and governance have rarely been raised. When concerns did
    arise about organizational structure and public accountability, they
    varied from commission to commission. However, concerns about regulatory
    authority largely centered on the scope of the commission's authority. In
    addition, a number of compact officials believed that concerns about
    commission structure and governance often reflected disagreements with
    specific commission actions rather than actual concerns about the
    organizational structure, public accountability, or regulatory authority
    of the commission itself.

    The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is generally similar in organizational
    structure and governance to three other interstate compact commissions
    with comparable functions--the Columbia River Gorge, Delaware River Basin,
    and Susquehanna River Basin Commissions. All four commissions consist of
    appointed representatives, although their size and composition vary; they
    all have an administrative appeals process to resolve disputes, and they
    use similar accountability mechanisms. A major difference between the
    Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the other commissions relates to the
    breadth of its authority regarding land use issues. This authority extends
    to water, air, and other natural resources, as well as public health and
    safety, whereas the Columbia River Gorge Commission has more limited land
    use authority, and the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Commissions
    have no land use authority.

    References

    Visible links
      38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-524SP
      49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-519
    *** End of document. ***