66
Opinion of the Court
Award govern the instant controversy. Determining whether Virginia's rights are subject to Maryland's regulatory authority obviously requires resort to those documents. We interpret a congressionally approved interstate compact "[j]ust as if [we] were addressing a federal statute." New Jersey v. New York, 523 U. S. 767, 811 (1998); see also ibid. ("[C]ongressional consent 'transforms an interstate compact . . . into a law of the United States' " (quoting Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U. S. 433, 438 (1981))). Article Seventh of the 1785 Compact provides:
"The citizens of each state respectively shall have full property in the shores of Potowmack river adjoining their lands, with all emoluments and advantages there-unto belonging, and the privilege of making and carrying out wharves and other improvements, so as not to obstruct or injure the navigation of the river." Va. Code Ann. Compacts App., pp. 342-343.
The plain language of Article Seventh thus grants to the "citizens of each state" "full property" rights in the "shores of Potowmack river" and the "privilege" of building "improvements" from the shore. Notably absent is any grant or recognition of sovereign authority to regulate the exercise of this "privilege" of the "citizens of each state." The lack of such a grant of regulatory authority in the first clause of Article Seventh contrasts with the second clause of Article Seventh and Article Eighth, which also recognized a right held by the "citizens" of each State:
"[T]he right of fishing in the river shall be common to, and equally enjoyed by, the citizens of both states . . . . Eighth. All laws and regulations which may be necessary for the preservation of fish . . . shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both states." Id., at 343.
Thus, while the Article Seventh right to build improvements was not explicitly subjected to any sovereign regulatory au-
Page: Index Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007