While lacking coercive power to compel enforcement, interstate compacts create accountability through multiple sources and layers connecting enforcement behavior to oversight. Using logistic regression, we test a model of accountability and enforcement of unauthorized water usage on the Klamath River. Findings indicate unauthorized water usage is far more likely to be reported and enforced on the Klamath River than on neighboring rivers in the same counties. Conclusions indicate the increased institutional layers of interstate compacts lead to more accountability and stringent enforcement and reporting of unauthorized water use.
AnderiesJ. M.JanssenM. A.OstromE.. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society9:18.
2.
BennettL. L.HoweC. W.. 1998. The interstate river compact: Incentives for noncompliance. Water Resources Research34:485–95.
3.
BowmanA. O’M.2004. Horizontal federalism: Exploring interstate interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory14:535–46.
4.
BowmanA. O’M.WoodsN. D.. 2007. Strength in numbers: Why states join interstate compacts. State Politics and Policy Quarterly7:347–68.
5.
BowmanA. O’MWoodsN. D.2010. Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts. Social Science Quarterly91(3):669–88.
6.
BrysonJ.CrosbyB.StoneM.. 2006. Design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from literature. Public Administration Review66:44–55.
CARA (California Rivers Assessment). 2017. California Rivers Assessment Interactive Web Database. http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara/ (accessed January 25, 2017).
ConsidineM.2002. The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships, and joined-up services. Governance15:21–40.
11.
ConsidineM.MoilanenT.. 2012. Accountability in the age of markets and networks. In The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, edited by PetersB. G.PierreJ., 712–30. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DickeL. A.OttJ. S.. 1999. Public agency accountability in human services contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review22:502–16.
13.
ForrerJ.KeeJ. E.NewcomerK. E.BoyerE.. 2010. Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review70:475–84.
14.
FlorestanoP. S.1994. Past and present utilization of interstate compacts in the United States. Publius24:13–25.
15.
FloydRita. 2013. Analyst, theory and security: A new framework for understanding environmental security studies. In Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, edited by FloydR.MatthewsR., 21–35. New York: Routledge.
16.
GregoryR.2012. Accountability in modern government. In The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, edited by PetersB. G.PierreJ., 681–88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
HeadB. W.2008. Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy3:101–18.
18.
HeikkilaT.SchlagerE.DavisM. W.. 2011. The role of cross-scale institutional linkages in common pool resource management: Assessing interstate river compacts. The Policy Studies Journal39:121–45.
19.
HillM.2009. The Public Policy Process, 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
20.
Homer-DixonT. F.1999. Environment, Scarcity, and Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
KettlD. F.2006. Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review66:10–19.
22.
KingG.ZingL.. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis9:137–63.
23.
KraneD.2002. The state of American federalism, 2001-2002: Resilience in response to crisis. Publius32:1–28.
24.
LipskyM.1983. Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
MotePSnoverA. K.CapalboS.EigenbrodeS. D.GlickP.LittellJ.RaymondiR.ReederS.. 2014. Chapter 21: Northwest. In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, edited byMelilloJ. M.RichmondT. C.YoheG. W., 487–513. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
27.
NCIC (National Center for Interstate Compacts). 2017. National Center for Interstate Compacts Database. http://apps.csg.org/ncic/ (accessed January 25, 2017).
28.
Nicholason-CrottyS. C.WoodsN. D.BowmanA. O’M.KarchA.. 2014. Policy innovativeness and interstate compacts. The Policy Studies Journal42:305–24.
29.
NiceD. C.1984. State participation in interstate compacts. Publius17:69–83.
30.
OstromE.2007. Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process, 2nd ed, edited bySabatierP. A., 21–64. Boulder, CO: Westview.
31.
OstromE.2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Transnational Corporations Review2:1–12.
32.
OstromE.2015. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
ProvanK. G.LemaireR. H.. 2012. Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review72:638–48.
34.
RikerW. H.1987. The Development of American Federalism. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
35.
RomzekB.IngrahamP.. 2000. Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the ron brown plane crash. Public Administration Review60:240–53.
36.
SalehyanI.2008. From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet. Journal of Peace Research45(3):315–26.
37.
SchlagerE.HeikkilaT.. 2009. Resolving water conflicts: A comparative analysis of interstate river compacts. The Policy Studies Journal37:367–92.
38.
SchlagerE.HeikkilaT.. 2011. Left high and dry? Climate change, common-pool resource theory, and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public Administration Review71:461–70.
39.
SchlagerE.HeikkilaT.CaseC.. 2012. Costs of compliance with interstate agreements: Lessons from water compacts in the Western United States. Publius42:494–515.
40.
SingletonS.2002. Collaborative environmental planning in the American West: The good, the bad and the ugly. Environmental Politics11:54–75.
