Compacts Are Not Administrative Agreements
Compacts differ from administrative agreements in two principal ways. First, states, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to enact compacts. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838). Thus, states do not need any express authority to enact a compact. In contrast, states must authorize their agencies and executive officials to enact administrative agreements both intrastate and with entities in other states. All states have such express authority in their constitutions, in generally applicable statutes, or in statutes that expressly authorize administrative agreements for specific purposes. These authorities commonly refer to administrative agreements as interlocal, intergovernmental, intermunicipal, or interagency agreements.
The second way that compacts differ from administrative agreements is that state legislatures enact compacts, whereas the executive branch of state government enters into administrative agreements through the exercise of the authority of the governor. Administrative agreements enacted by the executive branches of state government may also bind the executive entities enacting them, but do not have the same force and effect to bind a state legislature as statutorily enacted compacts. See, e.g., Gen. Expressways, Inc. v. Iowa Reciprocity Bd., 163 N.W.2d 413, 419 (Iowa 1968) (“We conclude the uniform compact herein was more than a mere administrative agreement and did constitute a valid and binding contract of the State of Iowa.”).