Interstate Water Compacts: Partnerships for Transboundary Water Resource Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are both successes and challenges related to the use of interstate water compacts, in their most effective forms they allow states to take a comprehensive, holistic approach to water management. Successful compacts tend to encompass the natural hydrologic boundaries of the water basin. They are more likely to utilize a commission type governance structure with sufficient authority to carry out the mission and goals of the compacting agreement. Successful compacts are flexible and allow for future developments (including climate change) while being cognizant of the need to protect and enhance the environment. They are also sensitive to the needs and desires of various stakeholders, including federal, state, and local governments as well as non-governmental organizations. Water compacts also face a variety of challenges. They must answer to a wide and diverse constituent base, often with conflicting interests. Stronger states can and do attempt to “bully” other states, severely limiting or eliminating altogether the usefulness of the compact. Governance structures that fail to integrate the interests of all states into a single body simply make the compact into an arena where small scale water wars can be fought. To illustrate an area where interstate water compacts could make a significant contribution, this paper concludes with a case study highlighting South Carolina’s transboundary water issues with North Carolina and Georgia. Recommendations for South Carolina include beginning negotiations toward the development of federal-interstate compacts as well as considering action in the Supreme Court in the event that these negotiations fail.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".