Colorado's Use of Interstate Streams

Home Browse Search

, , . . . • , . `. Often, great criticism is Ievetled against the Colorado repraentatives who were inscnunental in the framiag oE the several compacts to wbich the state is parcy. These criticisms range from che accusation that they 'gave our water away" to the charge chat they were "shon-sighted' and should have been more cognizant of Colorado's tremendous natural resources and its consequent potencial for future growth and nexd for arater. Certainiy, che Compact aegotiators were not blessed with sugerhuman abilitia and did, in fact, makc wmc quationable decisions, but before judging them too harshly it is imperative that the situation, as it exdsted at the tirne of negotiation, be undcrstood The first arca to cxamine is that of the prcvailiag legal mood in che U.S. Supreme Court with respect co the cquitable settlement of arater controvetsies. 'Ihe Supreme Court had decided many incerstata concxoversies, but only two cases pertained to the question oE wacer and irrigaaon in che arid and relatively unpopulated West. Coiorado was deFcadant ia both of chcse cascs. T'he 6rst case was Kansas v. Cotocado (185 U.S. 208; 206 U.S. 46; 1901, 1907). "Ihit case concerned the Arkansas River and its depletion by irrigatioa. Fram this case, the principle oE °equitable apportienmenC was evah-ed, which could be wnstrued to allow one state all or substaadally all of the waters oF a stream in order to offset other advaatages the ochcr state may have. This priaciple relicd heavily on preserviag cadstiag dtvelopcd uses, aad the ramifications of chis ldnd of thinlaing were apparent whea oonsidering the state oF dcvaloQment of Coiorado as opposed co Califoraia on the Colorado River. 'Ihe second Iandmark case which had great bearing on Colorado's negoaators was WyominLy v. Colorado (259 U.S. 419, 496; 260 U.S. 1; 1922). I"his case coacerncd che waten of the Laramie River, aad the Supreme Court uphald the theary that whea two contatiag staces both operate under the doccrine oE prior appropciatioa, then chat doctrine caa be apptied on an interstate basis Haviag beea severtly limitcd in these two cases, Colorado's negotiatocs began to search Eor a more viable way to protect Cotorado's waters for funue use. Itie second coasuaint piaced on the negoeiacocs was che laclc oE good hydrologic data. Foc cxample, in 1922 the historic raords indicatai a mean anaual floar ia the Colorado River at Lce Feny of I5,000,400 AF We now lmoar chat the geriod of rccord available was a wet one a.ad that che long term meaa flaa+ at I,ee FetYp was appcvximately 13.000,000 AF per year. Ia aaother instance, che swams in the Republican River Compact were allocated, ia seme instaaces, oa the bazis of less chaa ten yeazs of record. Kistory showa same of chese co have been undcrestimated by as much aS 8090. We seG then, chat whfle the Compacts to which Colorado is a signatory swte are rtstrietim che poteatial for much more damagiag Couct decisieos eosud. '- Wich this brief b4XgrouK'9fe foQowiag summan'es are presented. Ibese summaiies'in'66' •' way are coactusive or all-eacompassing. as r,ach Compact is a very camplicaced and di?'icult documeaL Aap decisioas ooacerning any Compact should be made oniy aEter a chorough cvaluaaon of the full documeac 2