WSP09097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

27 ('? CD "'" ....,..,.oj -':7) Compact would be enforced.30 In 1967, a continuance of the litigation was C) negotiated and the three states entered into a stipulation designed to insure that compact allocations between the three states would be main- tained (see Appendix G). Colorado agreed to meet its obligations under the Compact on an annual basis and if it does so, Texas and New Mexico will not pursue their claims for repayment of the alleged debt. By the end of 1976, approximately 300,000 acre feet of the alleged indebtedness was repaid to the downstream basin states. It is maintained by Colorado, however, that this is only an alleged indebtedness and is nonenforcible. It is only out of good will that the state is repaying the debt. As a consequence of the 1967 stipulation, flexibility was taken away from admiilistering the waters of the Rio Grande and its tributaries in the San Luis Valley. Previously, if Colorado went in debt one year to the .) downstream states, they would make it up in the next year. Under the present system this opportunity does not exist. The downstream states will not accept underdelivery in any year. . In fact, the problem with delivering water to the downstream states is that if Colorado does under- deliver in any year, those states may exercise their option to return to the court, revoke the stipulation, place a call on the remaining alleged indebtedness and perhaps require a Federal Master to come in and regulate the diversion on the Rio Grande under the conditions set out in the compact. Another issue of administration in the valley is the restoration of surface water rights to their status prevailing in 1938. The 1938 date is significant because this is the date on which the Rio Grande Compact was ratified by Texas, New Mexico and Colorado and the United States 30The Valley Courier, February 18, 1975, Vol. 47, No. 34, Page 1, Co 1. 3.