http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=elq

A. Interstate Controversies

In some of the earliest non-Tribal litigation, jurisdiction between Oregon and Washington was an explosive issue. Under the Acts creating them, Oregon and Washington had concurrent jurisdiction over the waters of the Columbia and Snake Rivers where they formed a common border. For years, Oregon and Washington passed conflicting laws regarding fishing seasons and the fishing gear that could be used. Those conflicts led to the decision in Nielsen, which involved an Oregon prosecution of a Washington citizen using gear legal under Washington law, but prohibited by Oregon.

Nielsen held that Oregon could not punish conduct that Washington, within its territorial limits, specifically authorized. Nielsen solidified the controversy, leaving Washington and Oregon with the power to regulate their citizens' conduct on the Columbia River in different manners, in spite of the shared nature of the fish resource. This contentious and convoluted management scheme led finally to the first negotiated fishing manage- ment agreement on the Columbia.

In 1918, in an effort to standardize Columbia River fishery management, Oregon and Washington agreed to form an Interstate Compact for purposes of managing the water over which they had concurrent jurisdiction. The Compact represents the first effort to negotiate some rationality and uniformity into the maze of Columbia River fish management.

Unfortunately, even though the Congressional Compact language speaks of "protecting and preserving fish," the Compact parties have done little more than set seasons and specify gear that may be used.