Colorado's Use of Interstate Streams

Home Browse Search

Any evaluatioa of the supply oE water awaflable for use to the citizens of Colorado must, of nacessity, inclede a study of the laws whic6 govera the topic. This evaluation must concern itself aot oaty with state law, which tells che water administrator how? to distnbute water as between citizeas oE tEie state, but must aLSO consider the ramifications of constitutional law and internaaonal law, for CoIorado is so situated that [he streams arising within her borders are vital to the ecoaomics of eig,hteen other states and the Republic of Me;dco. The consideration oE geograghy alone is enough to maka Colorado a prospective defendant in any interstate water case, but consideration of economics appeazs to be evea mare importaaL One-twentieth oE che land ia Colorado is under irrigaaon, a proportion which oocceeds aay other state. Consideriag irrigation by surface water only, Colorado has haif aga.in as much laad under irrigation as any other state. The abaity to protect and defcnd this huge portion oE the statc's economy is oE major impoctance to Colorado. - Calocado is dinxtly imrolvcd in one internatienal treaty, nine interstate compam ta+o U. S. Supreme Court danes, and one interstate agrtemcnk but before a discvssion of the treaty, compacu, aad decrees, it would seem appropriate to discuss the mechaaisms available for the solution of conoraversies betweea staces 'Ihree mettiads Are avaaable in the United States for thit gurposc i. Direct tegistatioa bq Congress. 2 A suit by one state agaiast ano¢her ia ttte Uaited States Supreme Court, 3. A compau beeween scaces approved, where necessary, by Congress. 'Ihe first of chese methods is very lianited ia scope, for whde Congress has absolute power ia administradon oE cerritories, iu abiliry.w interfere between states is permitted oniy wi¢hin its constitutional powecs, wbLich in chemselves are very limited. 1Zie secoad method is graated by Article 1B, Soction 2 of the U.S. Constitutioo, whereia it grants each state the right to seelc redress ficom legafl wmngs before the Supreme Court. This method is a civfliZed subatitution for war betwecn the states, and often the results are as uapredictablc. Two major drawbacla can rtsult 5com this coutse. The 6tm is the difffculty in securing aoxudoa of a judgmeat against a state siace each is a sovereign body not subjeu to the laws and actioes of the ochar, necessitating some lcad of Federal iateivr.ation Eor enforcemeaL 'IZie second drawbacfc, and perhaps the most insurmouatable, is that mot all matteis ia dispute becween staces are capable of judicial determinatioa, . ? 'Ihe chird mechod of resoiuaon of inte:state oontzoveisies is provided for in the U.S. ; Coastitution in A:ticle 1. Sec?on 10; Qam 3, whereby it is staud tha4 '. . no statre shall; ;-, •-- '..-..-; withont the coaseat of Cong:ess. ... mter moo aay agreemrant or oompact arithaaocher statG •or =...? wich a Eoreign poaer.' 'Ibis method prwides the advaatage of Ieagthy discussion of the ' concroversy outside of a focmal court environmeat bq individaals who ate latowiedgeable on the ? topic, teading to a mutual understaadiag oE pcoblems, aad hopefiilly, a mutually beaeficial soiudon ? '. in the focm aE a compact.