My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12578
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12578
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:39 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 8:43:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Basin - Legislation-Law - Compacts - Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/1/1986
Author
John U Carlson - Alan E Boles Jr
Title
Contrary Views of the Law of the Colorado River - An Examination of Rivalries Between the Upper and Lower Basins - John U Carlson and Alan E Boles Jr - 07-01-86
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Oul<ioD <br /> <br />(1907), the Court held that Kansas had not been sufficiently <br />damaged by Colorado's depletion of the water of the Arkansas <br />River to justify apportioning it. Although a suit by the <br /> <br />Upper Basin would not depend on the doctrine on equitable <br />apportionment, it might nonetheless founder on similar <br />grounds related to the degree of harm. <br />If the suit did escape a dismissal, it would probably be <br /> <br />slow and expensive to litigate, as is notoriously true of <br />original jurisdiction actions. More importantly, the Lower <br />Basin would not stand idly by. The doctrine of equitable <br />apportionment is riddled with vague, overlapping stan- <br />dards.86 The two opinions in Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 <br /> <br />u.s. 176 (1982) and 466 U.S. 310 (1984) contributed fresh <br /> <br />ambiguities to the doctrine, but probably it is still fair to <br /> <br />say there is still some life in the maxim, "Priority of <br /> <br />appropriation is the guiding principle." <br /> <br />Nebraska <br /> <br />v. Wvominq, 325 U.S. 589, 618 (194S). If it were interjected <br /> <br />in some fashion into the suit, the Lower Basin might manage <br /> <br />to obtain a decree which would protect its existing level of <br /> <br />use and demand and cast the Upper Basin into an irreversibly <br /> <br />inferior position. <br /> <br />The terror of original jurisdiction <br /> <br />litigation is its unpredictability. <br /> <br />V. LEGAL THEORIES POTENTIALLY PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE UPPER <br />BASIN. <br /> <br />A. T~e Requirement of Article III (d) of the Compact <br />That the Upper Basin Not Deplete the River Below an Aggregate <br />of 75 m.a.f. For Any Ten Year Period <br /> <br />-35- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.