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 7 made explicit in Article VIII that it did not affect vested water rights.!~t;tiGle lII(a) and (b) specifically apportioned to the s,ates the right to consumptively use unappropriated water, thus affirmingstate ownership ofthat water. That ownership was subject to the reserved authority of the United States to enter into a treaty with Mexico, and the Compact specified in Article I1I( c) the waters that the United States could use to satisfy any such obligation. "WliileArticle VII spe.cificallydeft the qq,estjon of quantification of Indian reserved water rights for future resolution, the Compact appears to charge the use of reserveafights against the basin in which the use is made. Article IV acknowledged that the Colorado River was not navigable-in-fact and *302 made uses for navigation subservient to domestic, agriculture, and power purposes (but reserved the authority of Congress to disapprove of this paragraph). The Upper Basin asserted the Compact preserved the autonomy of the states to regulate and allocate water under their own state systems. After finalization of the Compact, Carpenter addressed the Compact's intent to preserve intrastate regulation of water through the prior appropriation doctrine. Intrastate control of appropriations made within the apportionments provided by the compact is specifically reserved by ~.:llaragFa~h.~~Ft1cle IV. This includes such regulations as each state may provide by its constitution and laws respecting the preference of one class of use over other classes of use. In other words Mie~tim:tt()narrdlaWs"of'e()'ldradb control the details .ofappropriati0n,"11se,.and distribution of water within the state. The compact does not attempt to invade such matters of local concern. When approved, the compact will be the law of the river as between the states. It deals wholly with interstate relations. This paragraph refers to intrastate control. Whatever the intrastate regulation and control may be it cannot effect the interstate relations. No law of any state can have extraterritorial effect or interfere with the operation of the compact as between the states. (FN421 After the Compact negotiations, in his testimony on the Swing-Johnson Bill (later enacted as the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928), Carpenter asserted that part of the movement to negotiate the Compact had evolved from the desire to preserve state autonomy. Before the Compact, the Upper Basin States saw the Boulder Canyon dam proposal as a "monopolistic structure [[] proposed for lower river protection." [FN431 Carpenter summarized the Upper Basin States' opposition to authorization of the lower basin reservoir without simultaneous ratification of the Compact. The upper states have done everything within their power to speedily solve the underlying legal problems involved in the construction of flood control works for the lower river territory. They insist that they be afforded the protection of the Colorado River Compact, preferably by all seven states, before any further claims attach to the river. *303 They are not willing to permit their territory to be burdened and their people to be harassed [sic] with any such conditions as have prevailed upon the Rio Grande, North Platte and other rivers. In necessary self defense they must resist the construction of any reservoir upon the lower river until their rights have been settled by compact. [FN441 ~m6fiZing the construction of Hoover Dam and consenting to the Compact, Congress atlirmed the concept of state aatonomyin intrastate allocation and administration. When Congress passed the B'etdderGanyon Project Act [FN451 in 1928, it contained no general federal reservation of rights. The Act subjeeted the rights of the United States In or to waters of the Colorado River to the provisions of the Compact. [FN461 It gave the states an official advisory role, with full access to records, in the activities of the Secretary of the Interior under the Act. [FN471 Finally, the Act specifically disclaimed any interference with the rights of the states to adopt laws and policies concerning the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders, subject only to the Colorado River Compact or other compacts. [FN481 D. 'iJ!.ke~13pper.Basin Sought to Avoid the Threat of Interstate Litigation Among the States and Between the States and the Federal Government At the opening meeting of the Commission, Hoover stressed that avoiding litigation was one of the primary purposes of the Compact. It is hoped that such an agreement may be arrived at by this Commission as will prevent endless litigation which will inevitably arise in the conflict of state rights, with the delays and costs that will be imposed upon our citizens through such conflicts. The success of its efforts will contribute to the welfare of millions of people. [FN491 Carpenter responded to Hoover: As you well observed in your opening address the prime object of the creation of this Commission was to avoid future litigation among the states interested in the Colorado River and the utilization of the benefits to be obtained from its water supply. [FN501 @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.