Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-e',;.-,-, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />, <br />One hears a great deal about the Compact, more con than pro. }lisinformation <br />about it is plentiful. It is a complicated document. It could not be simple <br />because of the complex situation which is its sUbject. Perhaps the wisest <br />perspective is to simply view the Compact as a fact of life. It was argued all <br />the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and stood. In fact, the 1966 U.S. Supreme <br />Court case was "continued" and a formal' ruling was not made. The parties essen- <br />tially settled out of court for the same reasons private individuals faced with <br />a lawsuit would. The States faced a small chance of coming out of court a <br />little better off than they went in, a small chance of coming out a lot worse, <br />the probability of coming out about the same, and a 100 percent certainty that <br />the lawyer's bill would be waiting regardless of the outcome. Colorado promised <br />to meet the annual water delivery requirements of the Compact. However, the <br />State refused to formally acknowledge the 900,000 acre-feet "water debt" which <br />New Mexico and Texas maintained that Colorado has built up by allegedly failing <br />consistently to meet annual deliveries scheduled by the Compact between 1939 and <br />1966. Colorado did promise to attempt to "payoff" the alleged debt as a ' <br />gesture of "good will." The other States and the court agreed to put the case <br />"on hold," provided that Colorado did meet its Compact obligation every year. <br /> <br />To return to the "Compact-as-a-fact-of-life" concept; Valley residents who main:; <br />tain that the Compact is unfair are simply wrong. Those who say that it is a <br />darned nuisance have a pretty 'good point. Things would be simpler if the Valle~ <br />could just use all the water it wanted to without worrying about whether any <br />water at all flowed downstream. That would not be fair. The fact that SOme <br />water must flow downstream is not even an open question. How much and how that <br />"how much" is to be accomplished are what the arguments ate all about. A few <br />facts about the Compact may advance the goal of "living with it." <br /> <br />The overall purpose of the Compact is to assure that the relationship of annual <br />flows across State boundaries which had developed by the early 20th century is -- <br />maintained.- This does not mean that the same fixed absolut_e quantity is sup- ,-- <br />posed to flow across each State's boundaries every year. ,The terms of the <br />Compact are flexible. They recognize variations in natural flows from year to <br />year and anticipate that new sources of water for the Rio Grande Basin would <br />develop over the years. It is worth remembering that Colorado has the most <br />difficulty meeting its delivery requirement in years when the river's flow is <br />high. In years of low to average flow, the requirements are so small that they. <br />can be met almost without being noticed. The Compact also has provisions which <br />let the States accumulate water credits and debts, but it does prevent any State <br />from accumulating so much "credit" that it could shut off riverflow to the <br />downstream State for 1 or several years. Such action would rui,n tho.u,sands of <br />farmers. Both the Compact and the Treaty with Mexico are negotiated agreements, <br />one probably hears about as much complaining about them on every side of the <br />various borders. A basic rule of international diplomacy appears to apply. If <br />all of the parties to an agreement are unhappy with it, the agreement is almost <br />surely a fair one. <br /> <br />The fact remains that meeting the Compact requirements does pose some problems <br />for Colorado and the San Luis Valley. The continued Supreme Court case and <br /> <br />r~,.'01 <br />,,)Ulj 10'.1: <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />