Political Glossary

Interstate Compact

An interstate compact is a legally binding agreement between two or more U.S. states, approved by Congress under the Constitution's Compact Clause, used to manage shared resources or coordinate policy across state lines. Once ratified, a compact carries the force of both state and federal law.

Congress
Updated Jun 16, 2026
1 linked survey
In plain English
When states team up by contract.

It's a contract between states, blessed by Congress, that locks in how they'll share something like a river or handle a common issue.

Simple example
The Rio Grande Compact of 1938 divides the river's water among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, setting delivery obligations each state must meet at specified points along the river.
Why it matters
What the term actually changes.
Binding On States

Because Congress approves them, compacts can override conflicting state laws and are enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears disputes between states directly.

Shapes Daily Life

Compacts govern water supplies, transportation networks, and environmental rules that affect drinking water, farming, and energy across millions of residents.

Federalism Tension

Compacts let states craft regional solutions, but federal interests such as treaties or environmental laws can complicate or override state-negotiated terms.

How it works
The mechanics, in practice.
Negotiation And Consent

States draft and sign the agreement, then submit it to Congress for approval, which gives it federal legal status under the Compact Clause.

Allocation Formulas

Water compacts typically use measured flows, delivery points, and accounting rules to determine each state's share, often adjusted for drought or surplus conditions.

Dispute Resolution

When states disagree, they can sue one another directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, which may appoint a special master to recommend a ruling or settlement.

You’ve learned the term. Now vote.
Should states retain primary control over interstate river water under federal compacts?
Live results — 95 voters
Yes — states should manage their own water allocations with minimal federal involvement25%
Yes — but federal agencies should mediate when states cannot agree27%
No — the federal government should have stronger authority over shared rivers16%
No — interstate rivers should be managed by a dedicated federal water authority32%
See how 95 Americans voted
Cast your vote to unlock the results
Anonymous · one vote per person