WSP10392 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3594 3 '." One hears a great deal about the Compact, more con than pro. Misinformation about it is plentiful. It is a complicated document. It could not be simple because of the complex situation which is its subject. Perhaps the wisest perspective is to simply view the Compact as a fact of life. Tt was argued all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and stood. Tn fact, the 1966 u.s. Supreme Court case w'BS "continued" and a formal ruling wa5 not made. The parties essentially settled out of court for the same reasons private individual~ faced with a lawsuit would. The States faced a srnall chance of coming out of court a little better off than they went in, a small chance of coming out a lot worse, the probability of comin~ out about the same, and a 100 percent certainty that the lawyer's bill woul1 be waiting re~arJless of the outcome. Colorado promised to l:Ieet the annual water delivery r~quirements of the COr.1.p3Ct. However, the State refu~;ed to formally ackno\lledge thE' 900,000 acre-feet "water debt" which Nel.J Mexico and rexas maintained that Colorado has built up by allegedly failinR con- sistently to mpet annual deliveries scheduled by the Compact between 1939 and 1966. Colorado dd prumise to attempt to "pay oU" the alleged debt as a gesture of "good to/ill." The other States and the court agreed to put the case lion hold," provided that Colorado did mE"et its ComiJact obligati.on every year. To return to the "CoP.lpact-as-a-fact-of-life" concept; Valley residents who maintain that the Co~pact is unf~ir are simply wrong. Those who say that it is a darned nuisance have a pretty good point. Things would be simpler if thp Valley could just use all the water it wanted to without worrying about whether any water at all flowed downstreau. That would not be fair. The fact that some water must flow downstream is not even an open question. How much and how that "hm" muchl! is to be accomplished are what the argu- ments are all about. A few facts about the compact may advance the goal of I!living with it." , rhe overall purpose of the Compact is to assure that the relationship of annual flows acrosS State boundaries which had developed by the early 20th century is maintained. This does not mean that the same fixed absolute quantity is supposed to flow across each State's boundaries every year. The terms of the Compact are flexible. They recognize variations in natural flows Ero~ year to year and anticipate that new sources of water Ear the Rio Grande Basin would develop over the years. It is worth remembering that Colorado has the most difficulty meeting its delivery requirement in years when the river's flow is high. In years of low to average flou, the requirements are so small that they can be met almost without being noticed. The Compact also has provisions which let the States accumulate water credits and debts, but it does prevent any State from accumulating so much "credit" that it could shut ofE riverElm/ to the. downstream State for I or several years. Such action would ruin thousands of farmers. Both the Compact and the Treaty with Mexico are negotiated agreements, one probably hears about as much complaining about them on every siae of the various borders. A basic rule of international Hplomacy appears to apply. If all of the parties to an agreement are unhappy with it, the agreement is almost surely a fair one.