Laserfiche WebLink
<br />approaches, but whatever the allocation formula, existing uses and rights ar usually <br /> <br />protected. Approximately half of them provide that the allocations are to inc ude all <br /> <br />federal uses and it is likely that the others would be so interpreted. <br /> <br />With respect to the water supply estimates that formed the basis of the <br /> <br />allocations in the older compacts, time has shown many of them to be unrelia Ie. <br /> <br />Similarly, the western states entered into almost all the existing water alloca ion <br /> <br />compacts before the full impact of the "reservation doctrine" of federal and In <br /> <br /> <br />water rights was announced by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California i <br /> <br />Consequently, the estimated water requirements that were the basis of the co' pact <br /> <br />allocations were probably significantly understated for those states with subst ntial <br /> <br />areas of reserved federal and Indian land. Although Indian tribes had no role n the <br /> <br />negotiation or subsequent administration of these compacts, their undefined 19hts <br /> <br />were usually protected, as in the Colorado River Compact.I3' Likewise, few compacts <br /> <br />anticipated the impact of the federal environmental programs of the last forty <br /> <br /> <br />such as those under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, on <br /> <br />compact allocations and their utilization. Indeed, many of the allocation comp <br /> <br />are so environmentally outdated that it seems unlikely that most of them woul <br /> <br />currently receive congressional consent. With that background, it is almost <br /> <br />13' See M., Article VIII of the Colorado River Compact which provides that "Nothing in <br />this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of <br />America to Indian tribes". <br /> <br />9 <br />