PUB00161 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 UDENWLR290 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290 (Cite as: 4 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 290) Page 6 ~~~Je of this federal incursion about which Carpenter was concerned occurred pending the negotiation of the Root- Casasus Treaty with Mexico in 1906. The_fjaiftiment oLthe Interior placed an embargo onthe construction of all water "t1l'~~~.ts/gapllblic lanQs in the Rio Grande Basifi. The embargo lasted some thirty years, preventing development in the Rio Grande Basin in Colorado. Carpenter sensed a federal plot, stating, "[t]he real purpose was to prevent any construction on the headwaters of the stream while encouraging that construction along the lower river through which a monopolistic claim could later be asserted." [FN351 Carpenter asserted that *300 after Wyoming had initiated the construction of the Pathfinder Reservoir, a similar embargo occurred against development in the headwaters ofthe North Platte Basin in Colorado. [FN361 The United States also made direct assertions of broad legal authority in the case of Kansas v. Colorado. Carpenter summarized, "the United States intervened in the case urging that, by the enactment of the [National Reclamation Act], Congress had adopted a policy of national control and supervision over interstate streams, which was to supersede state control, upon a rule of priority of appropriation regardless of state lines." [FN371 The _~~~a:t.ti.S,had'asserted a similar claim in a Colorado proceeding for the adjudication of the water rights to the '@rand. "Vlilteyproject by local water users. Carpenter explained: Government counsel appeared before the State Court and insisted that the proposed project would occupy a preferred position compared with other appropriators; that the United States and not the states is the source of title to all water rights; that by the enactment of the Ma:rifjIilHR6clamation Act Congress had, by implication, set apart and dedicated all of the then unappropriated waters of western rivers for the primary purpose of ultimate diversion by canals to be built under the National Reclamation Act and that all rights of other appropriators and users must be subordinate to the preferred right of the Government to divert as much water as it might see fit under date of the approval of the National Reclamation Act. [FN381 -:OO~~ffitea"St'fi'~m(rGra~rm~tasebut continued to assert plenary federal control in other forums. In Wyoming v. Colorado, the federal government asserted claim to all the unappropriated water in western streams and rivers. However, the Supreme Court found it was not necessary to address the federal claims. The federal government also asserted appropriation claims in federal courts under the theory state courts had no jurisdiction over them. Even in the Compact negotiations, the United States made broad claims of superceding authority. The relationship of state and federal authority was one of the fundamental issues the Compact addressed. Herbert Hoover explained the Constitutional interests of the United States in his opening address to the Colorado River Commission ("Commission"), stating: "The Federal Government is interested through its control of navigation, through protection of its treaty obligations, through development of national irrigation projects and through virtual control of power development depending upon the use of public lands." [FN391 *301 The discussion of federal/state authority also arose directly toward the end of the Compact negotiations, when Herbert Hoover raised concerns about the issue of the retained authority of the federal government then under discussion. Ottamer Hamele, Chief Counsel of the Reclamation Service, urged that the Compact contain a general reservation of rights by the federal government. Hamele asserted that the Compact was in reality an agreement only among the states and that failure to include a reservation of federal rights could jeopardize the prospects for congressional ratification. When asked by Hoover for an enumeration of the federal rights, Hamele responded: Why the federal rights are first, the paramount right of navigation, which affects flood control. The United States also has the ownership, I believe, of all of the unappropriated water of the Basin. It has an interest in the building of irrigation works under the national irrigation act. It has rights under the Federal Water Power Act that possibly don't conflict with anything in this compact, but there are possibilities that we could conceive of by which that Act could be amended so that those rights might become in conflict with this compact unless they were reserved. It also has rights in connection with its treaties with the Indian tribes. [FN401 In view of his experience in resisting broad federal claims, it would have been natural if Carpenter were upset with Hamele when Hamele raised these same federal claims. Fortunately for Carpenter (and for the prospects of an agreement),~6f came to Carpenter's defense, and affirmed the intent of the Compact with regard to the preservation of states' rights. Hoover -=~G Hamele, "[w]etl,wehave provided here for an apportionment. That apportionment is not yet appropriated. If the fea6tafgovernment should intervene and say that the unappropriated water was its possession and province, it would destroy this entire apportionment between the seven states." rFN411 Ultimately, the Compact did address several of the specific federal powers the Commissioners had discussed. The Compact @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.