9367

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

The social and economic division of the state along the
Continental Divide is, in my mind, one of the reasons why the work of
these people, in the 1920's, to secure such a portion of the
beneficial use of the water, has not come to pass. We have such major
societal conflicts within our state that we cannot come to a
political, legal, and administrative agreement on the use of the
resource.
Let me begin by addressing the river itself. It is said to be
some 14,000 miles long. Essentially, it rises in Colorado and
Wyoming. It is said to be the only major river that is located
entirely in an arid region, and does not have a major city on its
banks. It is an international stream. The international treaty
between Mexico and the United States guarantees that a certain
quantity and quality of water will be provided annually to Mexico.
Over 701; of the flow of the river originates in Colorado.
In the early days, Colorado spokesmen, politicians, and leaders
fearlessly advocated the view that because Colorado River water
originated in Colorado, we, in Colorado, could keep it and use it to
our hearts content. Under this view, we did not have any obligation
to deliver a drop to the state line. That view bit the dust in a
series of United States Supreme Court decisions, in which interstate
river compacts, which called for an equitable sharing of the common
resource with downstream users, were applied.
The realization that the waters of the Colorado River are subject
to judicial division among the seven states [Colorado, Wyoming, Utah,
New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California] and Mexico was a
compelling fact that led to the negotiation and adoption of the
compact. It was compelling from the point of view of the upstream
states, like Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. These upstream
states keenly understood that their economies, and their development
were primitive compared to what was happening in California. They
understood that the rate at which California was growing, and the way
in which California eyed the Colorado River, as the economic engine
to drive growth in southern California, could negatively impact
upstream states. There was a tremendous understanding and realization
that the destiny of our region was at stake.
Also at this time, litigation was proceeding between Colorado and
Wyoming over the waters of the North Platte, Laramie and those rivers
that drained out the northern border of Colorado. This led to a
United States Supreme Court decision in 1920, which held that in
resolving disputes between states, where both states have the Doctrine
of Prior Appropriation [first in time, first in right] the courts
would look to an interstate system of priority to divide interstate
waters. It is highly ironic to me, that Colorado, the most keen and
perhaps the most committed of all the western states to the full
rigors of the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, saw, in an interstate.
system of Prior Appropriation, death, devastation, and destruction.
The notion that all of the water in the river would go down the river
because of Prior Appropriation drove them crazy.
There was a very canny lawyer located in Greeley, Colorado by the
name of Delph Carpenter. He had been consulted by a series of
governors on a number of water issues. One winter, while sitting up
there in Greeley, he read the United States Constitution. He noticed
that in the Constitution there is a provision in Article I regarding
2