Interstate Compacts


Pursuant to Article VI Section I of the adopted Bylaws of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission and of Section 11, Subsection H of the Interstate Medical Licensure...

Notice of Public Meeting

Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission

Coordinating Committee


Pursuant to Article VI Section I of the adopted Bylaws of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission and of Section 11, Subsection H of the Interstate Medical...

In Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado the Supreme Court agreed with a Special Master in a dispute about water rights involving an interstate compact, that Kansas would receive partial disgorgement (a fine) but not an injunction against Nebraska and accounting procedures would be changed so that Nebraska’s use of imported water would not be count against its compact allocation. Through an interstate compact ratified in 1943, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas share the virgin water supply originating in the Republican River Basin. The Court adopted the Master’s recommendation of $1.8 million in disgorgement because Nebraska knowingly failed to comply with the compact by knowingly exposing Kansas to a substantial risk that it would breach the contract and because water is more valuable to farmland in Nebraska than Kansas.

The act expands upon previous legislation (AB 114) that allows Nevada to develop and enter in to interstate compacts for online gaming. This act allows Nevada to not only other work out agreements with other states, but with foreign governments and tribal areas, as well. The bill defines eligible compact partners as “any governmental unit of a national, state or local body exercising governmental functions, other than the United States Government. This term includes, without limitation, national and sub-national governments, including their respective departments, agencies and instrumentalities and any department, agency or authority of any such governmental unit that has authority over gaming and gambling activities.” Agreements with international operators must follow the regulations already in place by Nevada’s Gaming Commission.

NEMA is very proud to release the first-ever report tracing the history of EMAC and its impact on national mutual aid policy and operations. A state-driven solution, EMAC stands as a tested and proven success story and an example of what determined individuals can accomplish when working together to make a difference for the nation.

With one swipe of NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s pen the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children has now been adopted by all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The Compact, which was developed jointly by CSG’s Compact Center and the Department of Defense, eases education transition issues faced by the children of active duty service members transferring between school districts and states.

The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children represents the fourth interstate...

At their most basic level, interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states. While compacts function fairly consistently from one agreement to the next, developing an interstate compact is not an exact science and varies considerably depending on the nature of the agreement. When developing a compact, CSG's National Center for Interstate Compacts works hard to promote a process that is deliberate, transparent and driven by subject matter experts.

Since its founding, CSG’s Compact Center has worked to promote the use of interstate compacts as an ideal tool to meet the demand for cooperative state action.  During that time there have been approximately 180 adoptions of CSG supported compacts, including 10 separate adoptions of different projects during the 2014 legislative session. Two of those compacts have expanded to all 50 states, while the Educational Opportunity for Military Compact has now grown to 48 states.  Below is a summary of various CSG compact projects.

The creation of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1922 through an interstate compact signaled a significant shift in the use and application of interstate compacts. For the first time states began using compacts to establish regulatory agencies with the authority to act on the state’s behalf. Known as administrative compacts, these agreements frequently allow for a sophisticated governing structure that possess the authority to pass rules, draft bylaws, form committees, and hire staff to carry out the daily operations of the compact.  

Interstate compacts often are viewed as a way for states to work cooperatively to avoid federal intervention or a federally mandated solution. While that is an accurate statement, it does not mean the federal government does not play a role in the compact process. In fact, federal officials are active in a number of compacts, with participation ranging from congressional consent to direct federal involvement.