Arkansas Basin_Water Supply and Needs

Home Browse Search

Section 4 Legal Framework for Water Use water user could take steps to eliminate certain phreatophytes and thereby "salvage" additional water. That water, however, is owed to the stream and does not necessarily accrue to the benefit of the specific water user conducting the "salvage" activity, since a water user cannot take credit for a "salvage" activity and thereby divert more water. 60 Salvage water is owed to the stream to be diverted by downstream water users pursuant to the priority system. 4.3 Interstate Compacts, Equitable Apportionment Decrees, and Memoranda of Understanding Similar to limitations imposed by the prior appropriation system, interstate compacts and equitable apportionment decrees also place limitations on water use in Colorado. Allocation of water supplies among states has been accomplished using compacts (negotiated interstate agreements ratified by Congress and the legislatures of the participating states) or interstate litigation. The following summarize the relevant interstate compacts and decrees for each river basin. For more information used in this subsection and additional details on the individual compacts and decrees, the reader is referred to Appendix D of the SWSI Report, A Summary of Compacts and Litigation governing Colorado's Use of Interstate Streams (Division of Water Resources [DWR] 2000) and the CWCB website at: http://cwcb.state.co.us/ SecD/interstate. htm. The CWCB actively protects the authority, interests, and rights of the state and its citizens in matters pertaining to interstate waters. The CWCB and other representatives appointed by the Governor are engaged in ongoing discussions with federal agencies and other states about water availability and utilization. 60 Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Shelton Farms, Inc., 187 Colo. 181 (1975). o :\SHAWN\ARKANSAS\S4_ARKANSAS. DOC 4.3.1 Arkansas River Compact of 1948 The Arkansas River Compact apportions the waters of the Arkansas River between Colorado (60 percent) and Kansas (40 percent) based on the inflow to John Martin Reservoir. The Compact established the Arkansas River Compact Administration to prescribe procedures for Compact administration, including three representatives from Colorado (a water user from above and below John Martin Reservoir and the Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board), three Kansas representatives, and a federal representative. The 1980 Operating Principles, adopted by the Arkansas River Compact administration, provide for storage accounts in John Martin Reservoir and the release of water from those accounts for Colorado and Kansas water users. If the conservation pool in the reservoir is depleted, Colorado is required to administer water rights priorities in District 67 (downstream from John Martin). During such periods, Water flowing into the reservoir does not accrue to the accounts that are established under the operating principles. Colorado and Kansas have litigated claims concerning Arkansas River water since the early 20th century. In 1995, Colorado was found to have depleted stateline flows in violation of the Compact. The states are now litigating the nature and extent of the injury before the Supreme Court appointed Special Master. In response to an order of the Court, the Colorado State Engineer promulgated well administration rules to bring Colorado into compliance with the Compact. 61 61 See 37-69-101 to 37-69-106 C.R.S. CDIVI 4-9