WSP09097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.c,-,'.,';",,'''' 34 o "d'I ..~ o C} 1. Do the schedules contained in Article III of the Rio Grande River r- Compact constitute separate and specific commitment on each river system, or are the schedules merely determinative of Colorado's overall commit- ment, thereby permitting the ultimate regulation of each river within the state by the State Engineer pursuant to Colorado law? The water users in the Conejos River Basin want the Rio Grande River administered as one unit in Colorado since their priority priority dates on the Rio Grande dates are generally earlier than the . 38 River. They argue that the Compact did not repeal the appropriation doctrine in Colorado and when a "call" is made below the confluence of the Rio Grande River and the Conejos River, water rights must be curtailed in reverse order. The Compact requirement is the number one "call" on the river and the schedules contained in Article III are merely mathematical calculations to determine the amount of water to be sent to New Mexico. Thus, presumably water users on the Rio ~rande woul d be curtailed if a "call" on the ri ver is made to fulfi 11 Compact requirements. On the other hand, the water users along the Rio Grande River feel that the schedules in the Compact were required to establish a commitment for each river basin regardless of the priority date. Historically the Rio Grande River and the Conejos River were administered as two separate rivers and negotiations at that time on the Rio Grande River recognized the two river concept. As was previously pointed out, paragraphs lIB and IIC of the State Engineer's Proposed Rules and Regulations would have treated the 'Compact schedules as specific requirements for each river. 38 See protests filed in People vs. The Mogote Ditch, supra.