AppendixD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Often, great criticism is leveled against the Colorado representatives who were instrumental in the framing of the several compacts to which the state is party. These criticisms range from the accusation that they "gave our water away" to the charge that they were "short-sighted" and should have been more cognizant of Colorado's tremendous natural resources and its consequent potential for future growth and need for water. Certainly, the Compact negotiators were not blessed with superhuman abilities and did, in fact, make some questionable decisions, but before judging them too harshly it is imperative that the situation, as it existed at the time of negotiation, be understood. The first area to examine is that of the prevailing legal mood in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the equitable settlement of water controversies. The Supreme Court had decided many interstate controversies, but only two cases pertained to the question of water and irrigation in the arid and relatively unpopulated West. Colorado was a defendant in both of these cases. The first case was Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 208; 206 U.S.46; (1901, 1907). This case concerned the Arkansas River and its depletion by irrigation. From this case, the principle of "equitable apportionment" was evolved, which could be construed to allow one state all or substantially all of the waters of a stream in order to offset other advantages the other state may have. This principle relied heavily on preserving existing developed uses, and the ramifications of this kind of thinking were apparent when considering the state of development of Colorado as opposed to California on the Colorado River. The second landmark case which had great bearing on Colorado's negotiators was W,~ming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 496; 260 U.S. l; (1922). This case concerned the waters of the Laramie River, and the Supreme Court upheld the theory that when two contesting states both operate under the doctrine of prior appropriation, then that doctrine can be applied on an interstate basis. Having been severely limited in these two cases, Colorado's negotiators began to search for a more viable way to protect Colorado's waters for future use. The second constraint placed on the negotiators was the lack of good hydrologic data. For example, in 1922 the historic records indicated a mean annual flow in the Colorado River at Lee Ferry of 15,000,000 acre-feet. We now know that the period of record available was a wet one and that the long-term mean flow at Lee Ferry was approximately 13,000,000 acre-feet per year. In another instance, the streams in the Republican River Compact were allocated, in some instances, on the basis of less than ten years of record. History shows some of these to have been underestimated by as much as $0%. We see, then, that while the Compacts to which Colorado is a signatory state are restrictive, the potential for much more damaging Court decisions existed. With this brief background, the following summaries are presented. These summaries in no way are conclusive or all-encompassing, as each Compact is a very complicated and difficult document. Any decisions concerning any Compact should be made only after a thorough evaluation of the full document.