PUB00161 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ " 4 UDENWLR 290 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290 (Cite as: 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290) Page 5 Thus, the Compact renders a race for development between Upper and Lower Basins unnecessary. The Compact assures the Upper Basin that the Lower Basin's entitlement is only a finite share of the Colorado River, thus allowing the Upper Basin to make long-term capital investments with a degree of security in its water supply. [FN241 The Upper Basin is free to develop water as economic need dictates, regardless of how long that might take. The Upper Basin is not required to answer questions about the pace of its development, or, more importantly, to undertake premature or environmentally destructive water project development simply to hoard water for future need against the Lower Basin. [FN251 B. 1il&~p.er BasinSought to Eliminate the Application of the Prior Appropriation Doctrine on an Interstate Basis In addition to the enormous financial demand of large-scale development, the need for coordination in the development of the Colorado River also became apparent because of the slightly different legal doctrines in each of the western states. Interstate disputes highlighted these differences, and the assertion of federal authority over interstate waters exacerbated them. Early in the twentieth century, Colorado litigated three lawsuits in the United States Supreme Court involving interstate waters--K"d'lIs~"-~~~8'O I and II, [FN261 and~8~;icColOFado. [FN271 The Kansas v. Colorado cases involved *298 disputes between two states with different water law systems. Colorado was a pure prior appropriation state, while Kansas water law, like California law, employed a combination of riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Colorado asserted it had a sovereign right to fully deplete the Arkansas River. rFN281 The $,up.t:emeCourt heldthat.l<:ansas,. as a downstream state, didnot.have the right to all of the water in the Arkansas River undepleted by Colorado. [FN291 However, the Court also' held that Colorado, as the state of origin, did hot have the right to retain all the water' within its borders. [FN301 ~&r~fore"theCourtimposedanequitable apportionment of water, without regard to the relative dates of use withi!l 'tn6two states. In contrast, the decision in Wu_ift~~Mt)l;lfdoinvolved two pure prior appropriation states. cInthis ,case; the, Court deClined to apply the Doctrine of Equitable Apportionment, and instead appti~dia rule of interstate priority-- between two prior appropriation states, the doctrine of prior appropriation applies. [FN311 Thus, the result in the Wyoming case became Qne of the principal motivating factors in Colorado's desire to pursue th0'Aflegotiation of the Compact. The Upper Basin feared the Lower Basin could use the Wyoming decision to obtain permanent preferential rights to water simply by developing faster. (FN321 In the Compact negotiations, Colorado sought to make sure the states would never use the rule in the Wyoming case to deprive the Upper Basin of its right of development. [FN331 The Upper Basin achieved its goal. Several provisions of the GOmpact limit the Lower Basin's claim on Upper Basin water. The fIrst, of course, is the pJ;~I:Petual allocation of consumptive use made in Article lII(a}. Regarding water flowing from the Upper to the Lower Basin, Article III( e) provides that one cannot make a claim except to the extent actually needed for domestic and agricultural purposes. Article IV(b) makes power generation subservient to consumption for domestic and agricultural purposes. Finally, Article VIII provides that the..Q(')mpactdoesnGtimpair present perfected rights, and all othvr rights are to be satisfied solely from water apportioned to the basin in which they are situated. After the Compact negotiations, Carpenter discussed his view of the effect of the Wyoming case, and how the Compact had resolved the *299 issue. Further development on the lower river will in no manner affect this apportionment or impair the right of the upper States to consume their apportionment whenever their necessities require. Any immense reservoir hereafter constructed on the lower river cannot be the basis of a preferred claim which will interfere with the future development of the Upper Basin. The development in the Lower Basin will be confined to the apportionment made to that basin, with the permissible increase. Any excess of development cannot infringe upon the reservation perpetually set apart to the upper territory. There can be no rivalry or contest of speed in the development of the two basins. Priority of development in the Lower Basin will give no preference of right as against the apportionment to the Upper Basin. [FN341 C. ~perBasin'Sought to Preserve State Autonomy and Sovereignty Over Intrastate Water Appropriation and Administration For years, the West had seen far reaching claims of authority asserted by the federal government over the use, allocation, and development of western waters. @)Ji.~e'Tfillj'6t'p'Utposes in negotiating the Compact for the Upper Basin was to erect. a ,shield against federal claims of authority, thus preserving state regulatory authority over allocation and administration of waters within state borders. @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.