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. 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. 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. In practice, we found  that 67 percent of the commissions that responded to our survey reported  having an administrative staff. In some cases, the commission only had advisory authority. Administrative appeals—a process by which an action of the commission  can be appealed to the commission itself. 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. Compacts administered by state agencies  or officials contained few provisions for dispute resolution and  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. 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. Some  concerns about public accountability have resulted in lawsuits. Although the  specific concerns varied from commission to commission, the concerns  often involved the scope of the commission’s authority. 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. 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. For example, unlike  TRPA, the CRGC cannot regulate land use for public health and safety,  such as natural hazards, or for noise. 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. From this list, we identified and reviewed 59 compacts with  congressional approval. We identified three commissions that  met these criteria—the Columbia River Gorge Commission, the Delaware  River Basin Commission, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact established the Tahoe Regional  Planning Agency (TRPA) to administer the compact.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.