WSP11716

• File Number: 8507
• Description: Rio Grande Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Rio Grande
• Date: 7/1/1997
• Title: Water Management Study: Upper Rio Grande Basin part 1
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

~
,')

'.'
'",,,-'

Maior Physical, Legal, and Institutional Characteristics

~~'

"1;

The Compact is constitutional in nature and an agreement between or
among sovereign states on a matter of common or equal jurisdiction. It had
to be mutually agreed to by each state and ratified by their respective
legislatures. In addition, it is a federal law and became effective only when
congressional approval was obtained. The Compact has three signatories,
the three states.. The U.S. is not a signatory, but is a participant according to
the Compact's terms and by the constitutional mechanism of congressional
ratification. The Compact has permanent status as the law governing water
allocation within the Basin absent any change by the signatory states and
the Congress. Its terms will be enforced by the Supreme Court according to
the terms of the Compact without modification, despite the intervening
actions or activities of the signatory states. (See Texas v. New Mexico,
462 U.S. 554 (1983), and Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221 (1991))
(David W. Robbins, comment on draft report).

;"-,
~.;;

",
:~

.,:;-.1

.;.,

~~

;~_c

The Compact allows the states some leeway for meeting their obligations:
Colorado can accumulate debits of 100,000 af and New Mexico debits of
200,000 af. In 21 ofthe first 28 years of the Compact, however, Colorado
underdelivered or exceeded its limit, with its total debit climbing to
944,000 af. In response to litigation brought by the downstream states,
Colorado agreed in 1967 to strictly meet its annual delivery obligations and,
with a minor exception in 1979, has done so. New Mexico failed to meet its
obligations in 16 of the first 28 years and its cumulative debit exceeded the
limit from 1948 through 1968. As a result, it also has been the subject of
litigation from downstream. Its cumulative debit has not exceeded the limit
since 1968, although it has failed to meet its annual delivery obligation
during 9 of the ensuing years, largely because it has a limited ability to
meter and regulate diversions (Daves 1994).

:,;;

'.
:~:'

';;:

New MexicolTexas Water Commission. In 1991 litigation over the
disposition of water supplies below Elephant Butte Dam was resolved with
the formation of the Joint Settlement Commission, comprising, from Texas,
the El Paso County Water Improvement District (EPCWID) and the EI Paso
Water Utilities Public Service Board, and, from New Mexico, the Elephant
Butte Irrigation District (EBID), New Mexico State University, City of Las
Cruces, and Dona Ana County. It later changed its name to the New
Mexico/Texas Water Commission. The members of the commission have
agreed to work together, identify, and address common concerns regarding
the area's water and especially to maximize waters available from the

f 0u'. ')
'J '- t..) 1. ,J

23