Laserfiche WebLink
someone from the sub - unit come to Roundtable or other local meetings around the state to talk <br />about law of the river issues. <br /> <br />James gave four reasons for the 2006 creation of the Colo rado River Sub - Unit : <br /> <br />1) C urrent interstate litigation on the river. The sub - unit deals with active litigation over <br />Glen Canyon and lining of the All - American Canal. On canal lining, Colorado took the <br />position that all water on the river has been divided up, with none l eft to let seep through <br />th <br />canal bottoms or otherwise appropriate. The State entered an amicus brief to the 9 <br />C ircuit Court, which kicked out the case and is allowing canal lining to proceed . <br /> <br />2) Ongoing interstate negotiation . The sub - unit resear ches legal issues that arise during <br />ongoing negotiation between the basin states. <br /> <br />3) Litigation preparation . The sub - unit is helping ensure Colorado is prepared in the event <br />th at one of the lower basin state s (within the Colorado River Compact) or the Secre tary <br />of the Department of Interior brings a lawsuit or makes the determination that not enough <br />water is getting to the lower basin. James noted that Arizona and California have each <br />set up te ams to prepare for legal action, and Colorado concluded it was p rudent to start <br />preparing as well. <br /> <br />4) Intrastate administration issues. The AG’s office has been in dialogue with State <br />E ngineer’s office to discuss issues that will arise in the event that a rulemaking process to <br />determine intrastate administration of a com pact call goes forward. The sub - unit’s job is <br />to give the state its best legal advice on the status of Colorado law with respect to <br />compact rule making. <br /> <br />James reiterated that the State of Colorado is not the entity responsible for determining whether <br />the re is a compact call. The trigger will come in the form of litigation from the lower basin <br />states or the D epartment of Interior that asks the upper basin to release more water downstream. <br />Then, the U pper Colorado River Basin Commission will determine wha t upper basin states owe <br />at the state line. He noted that such a situation would bring up a multitude of legal issues , and <br />would be a long, slow - moving, and complicated process. <br /> <br />Beginning with the Colorado River Compact in 1922, James provided a quick overview of the <br />law of the river. He stated that Article 3(d) of the 1922 compact is the “hammer” clause, which <br />specifies the obligation of upper basin states based on a 10 - year rolling average measured at <br />Lee’s Ferry. In 1948, the upper basin states ra tified a compact which led to Congressional <br />approval of the Storage Act in 1956. The 1948 doc ument provides specifics regarding the Upper <br />B asin C ommission’s role in determining apportionment of shortage in upper basin states. <br /> <br />Discussion with the IBCC: <br /> <br />Jeris Danielson: A re you coordinating your efforts with other upper basin states? <br />Response: The individuals that represent upper basin states on compact issues are the <br />same people that are looking at these long - term issues. It is a tight - knit group. Ho wever, <br />the way the Upper Basin Commission is supposed to apportion shortage among the states <br />is vague. <br /> <br /> 3 <br />