WSP09853 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003112 originates,"27 a subsequent paragraph adds: "Only excess and surplus water should be utilized outside the areas of origin and citizens within the areas of origin have a prior right to water originating therein to the extent that it may be required for beneficial use therein."2. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board has defined excess and surplus water as "that amount of water which is greater than the present or reasonable forseeable [sic] future water requirements needed to satisfy all beneficial uses within an area of origin."29 In the interstate context, waters have been formally allocated by two general means-interstate compacts and court-decreed equitable apportionment. The Colorado River Compact of 192230 is the classic example of an interstate compact designed (in part) to insure the fu- ture availability of water for the areas of origin of the Colorado River. Colorado and other upper basin states were concerned that rapid growth in southern California would result in full appropriation of the Colorado River, leaving nothing for their own later development. The permanent division of water incorporated in the compact arrangement was intended to protect development interests in these upstream states.31 Since the 1907 case of Kansas v. Colorado,'2 the U.S. Supreme Court has taken original jurisdiction in litigation between states re- garding interstate waters. In general, the Court has applied the law of prior appropriation in cases involving states recognizing this doc- trine.33 Not surprisingly, the emphasis is generally on protection of existing uses and provision for apparent new uses. Area-of-origin pro- tection has not played a significant role in court decisions under this doctrine. 17. OK!.'\'. STA."I. ANN. tit. B2. ~ lOB6.\(A} (West Supp. 1985). 28. ld. S 1086.1(.)(4). 29. Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rules, Regulations and Modes of Procedure ~ 125.1 (1919 Revision). In a case that has been before the Oklahoma Supreme Courf since 1983, one of the issues is whether out-of-basin diven,ion!'. remain subject 10 possible "recall" by subsequent appropriators in the basin of origin. Oklahoma Waler Resources Bd ... Franco-American Charolaise. Ltd.. No. 59-310 (Okla. filed in 1983). The Board's position is thai prolc=ction is provided only 10 those in the area of origin holding water rights or app]icali(lns for waler rights at the time of application for an out-of-basin di...ersion Appellant's Brief at 37, Okbhoma Water Resources Bd.. No. 59.3\0. The Oklahoma Dis- trict Court had decided lhat the rights bemg sought in this case must be made "subject to recall" by subsequent users within the stream syslem of Origin. 30. Act of Aug. 19. 1921. ch. 72. 42 Stat. 171 (192]) (the compact was signed in SanlD Fe, N~w Mexico (Nov. 24, 1922), ,~e(! 43 USe. ~ 617(I)(a) (1982)). The Act was approved by Congress in Ihe Boulder Canyon Projecl Act, ch. 42. 913.45 Stal. 1064 (1928) (codified as 43 USe. 9 617(1) (1982)). 31. Indeed the lower baSIl! .qates have long since diverted their full cntillemenl of 7.5 mil]ion acre.feet per year while lhe upper basin Slales have yet to apply their full share 10 benefiCial use. 32. 206 U.S. 46 (1907). 33. See the excellent discus..ioll by Tar]ock. The Low of Equiwb/r! Apportivllme/1! R(!vi.~il(!d. Up. dOled orrd Re.~I(1led. 56 U. COLO. L Rr:v 38] (1985).