9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Compacts, Agreements and Institutions Involved in Colorado River Operations James S. Lochhead Upper Colorado River Commission, Colorado Water Conservation Board Today, I am charged with giving you a background on the Law of the River. That is a lot. It is a very complex framework. Rather than describe the details of each of the laws and how they work, I would like to give a historical perspective. I would also like to convey that the framework and the structure of the Law of the River is a partnership between the seven basin states and the federal government. The partnership involves integrating the operation of the large system of dams and reservoirs to benefit all of the seven states. The law makes it very difficult for any single entity within either the Upper Basin or the Lower Basin to operate on its own. John gave you an excellent background and feeling for the foundation of the Compact by explaining what the views were in the Upper Basin, what the needs were in the Lower Basin, and how the Compact accommodated those needs. Colorado has relied on that Compact since 1922 as a perpetual allocation of water. Later in the conference, I will be speaking about a joint resolution passed by the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives this year that further affirms what Colorado's view was in 1922. As John mentioned, it is important that Colorado continue to rely on that entitlement, even now when it is apparent that there is far less water in the river than what was allocated. I think the negotiators of the Compact never contemplated that there could be less water in the river then what they allocated. In fact, when they made the provision for deliveries to Mexico they thought that they had been very conservative and Mexico could be taken care of with surplus water over and above the 16 million acre-feet allocated in the Compact. There were three fundamental points that related and formed the basis for the framework of the Law of the River. First, there was a desire on the part of the federal government to initiate and comprehensively develop the river system. Federal employees, commentators, and explorers, such as John Wesley Powell, Richard J. Hinton and Arthur Powell Davis, all spoke of the federal government's need to "tame the River." As early as 1878, there were proponents for federal control over comprehensive development of the river. . Second, the Lower Basin was in need of the All-American Canal and. flood control works on the lower river that could prevent the kinds of floods that created the Saltan Sea. Third, the real motivating factor for the Upper Basin was the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wvominq v. Colorado. The Court basically held that in an interstate dispute between two prior appropriation states, the doctrine of prior appropriation would apply. Delph Carpenter, on behalf of Colorado, and the other interests in the Upper Basin knew that this decision meant the Lower Basin would 10 " ,.. .