Laserfiche WebLink
<br />359:'i <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />The fact remains that meeting thE' COI:Jpact requiremE'fltS does pose SOr.l€ <br />problems for Colorado and the San Luis Valley. The continued Supreme Court <br />case and alleged debt situation mean that every year's scheduled delivery <br />must be'met. Unti l some pro!(ress is made paying off the alleged debt, <br />Colorado and the Valley have no "breathing room.1I Failure to nE'et the <br />requirement for just one year, even for a very small amount of water and <br />regardless of the reasons, would allow Texas and New Mexico to reopen their <br />suit. Knowledgeable sources believe that what would probably co~e out of <br />that actiol1 would be the assignment of a Riv~r Master to the Rio Grande. <br />rhe River Master would be responsible only for seeinr, that the terms of the <br />Compact were met. This would remove the administration of many water- <br />re lated issues fror.! local control. Government management of small scale <br />irrigation systems often doesn't work out very well [or the local users. <br />It is in thE' Valley's interest to work out a system on the local level <br />which allows the Co~pact to be m~t and to avoid having a system imposed on <br />it from "above.1I <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />For the short term) the Colorado State Engineer's office is responsible for <br />the difficult and thankless task of making sure the compact is cOQplied <br />with. Like most holding actions, the effort has to be undertaken piecemeal <br />and year to year. Almost every attempt by the State Engineer's office to <br />regulate the flow of water in the river or even to try to develop the <br />guidelines of a system to accomplish this has met vigorous resistance. The <br />response of those ~ho see their vital interests threatened is co~pletely <br />reasonable. The response is always, IIWhy me?lI. To which the State <br />Engineer responds, "We have to start sOIJE'where.1I To which the individual <br />responds) "See you in court.1I Each individual's act is reasonable and no <br />one would argue with his right to bring his own complaint before the law. <br />The net result, however, has been conflict, the polarization of various <br />interest groups, and the IIclimate of economic fearll which was ment ioned <br />earlier. Until a system is established which will assure a source of water <br />to reliably meet the annual compact requirement and to mak~ progr~8s in <br />"paying off" the alleged debt. this situation will continue. It is a <br />situation which is causing the Valley real economic hardship. The hardship <br />is not related to the quantity of water required. The hardship is the <br />result of the failure to define a system for providing the water and the <br />uncertainty wh~ch this has caused. Farmers have quite enough risks to take <br />in the course of a normal year's business. The weather, markets, the eco- <br />nomy in general, and many other things make farming a gamble under the most <br />secure conditions. An additional area of uncertainty. whether or not ade- <br />quate water will be available at the needed time in the growing season, has <br />dir~ct econo~ic consequences. It affects the decisions of individual farmers <br />on whether or not to put a crop in the field and" their ability to secure <br />the financial backing to run their businesses for a year. rhe attempts to <br />remove that area of uncertainty by actual or threatened legal action drains <br />large amounts of money out of the Valley, too. <br /> <br />In 1966, rexas and New ~exico brought the Co~pact dispute to the Supreme <br />COllrt. Valley residents realized that the terms of the Compact might actually <br />be enforced. The need ,was recognized for a local organization to protect <br />the Valley's water rights and to develop programs which would allow the <br />historically established framework of Valley agriculture to continue <br />