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

16

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. 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.

asserts, post, at 4–5, that the