Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/20

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
16
ALABAMA v. NORTH CAROLINA

Opinion of the Court

to "secur[e] a license," post, at 2, but only to take "appro­priate steps" to obtain one, Art. 5(C), 99 Stat. 1877. And nothing in the terms of the Compact required North Carolina either to provide "adequate funding" for or to "beg[i]n construction" on a regional facility, post, at 2. Other con­temporaneously enacted interstate compacts expressly provide that the host State is "responsible for the timely development" of a regional facility, Central Midwest Com­pact, Art. VI(f), 99 Stat. 1887; Midwest Compact, Art. VI(e), id., at 1898, or "shall ... [c]ause a regional facility to be developed on a timely basis," Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, Art. III(d)(i), id., at 1903–1904. But the compact here before us has no such provision, and the contrast is telling.[1] Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S., at 565. Moreover, the Commission's state­ments described in the preceding paragraph, that it would be imprudent to commit additional resources "'if a source of funds is not established soon for the ultimate comple­tion of the project,'" or "'if funds will not be available to complete the project,'" surely suggest that North Carolina is not committed to the funding by contract.

Justice Breyer asserts, post, at 4–5, that the rotating­-

  1. The Compact provides only that the host State is "responsible for the availability ... of their regional facilities in accordance with" Article 5(B). Art. 3(C), 99 Stat. 1873–1874. The latter section makes clear that responsibility for "availability" does not mean that the host State will fund construction of the facility, but that it will keep it open and not impose unreasonable restrictions on its use. Justice Breyer is correct that the Compact says the Commission is not "responsible" for the costs of "the creation" of a regional facility. Art. 4(K)(1), id., at 1876. But what is important here is that it does not say that the host State is responsible—which (if it were true) would almost certainly have been joined with saying who was not responsible. What Justice Breyer overlooks is the possibility that no one is responsible, and the licensing and construction of the facility is meant to depend upon voluntary funding by interested parties, such as the party States, the Commission, and low-level radioactive waste generators.