9367 ‎(2)‎

• 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

After the Compact was formulated it had not been completely
agreed upon, as you know by listening to Jim Lochhead, but Congress
then passed a law that approved that Compact. If Congress can pass
a law to approve a compact, can they not disapprove of the compact?
Have you ever seen Congress pass a law that it does not think it can
change? I subscribe to the thought that Congress can, if it so
decides, change the Compact. Notwithstanding the fact that the seven
states may not agree to any proposed change. We are talking about the
legal tower. There are several reasons why Congress is not anxious
to undertake redrafting that Compact, even if they do have the power.
There is a maze of federal and state legislation which support and
enhance the Compact and makes it politically difficult, if not
embarrassing, to try to reverse those decisions.
I wonder if many people are aware of the Colorado Statute that
was adopted in the days when we were worried about the slurry
pipeline. The statute said that if water was going to be exported out
of the state an adjudicated water right that stated how much water was
going to be exported and to where was necessary. There is nothing
unusual about that. That is an extension of our normal adjudication
act. The purpose and destination of the water must be stated. The
interesting thing is the statute goes on to say that the state to
which the water is delivered must count that water in their
entitlement. As a matter of fact, if the water just passes through
a state, such as a slurry pipeline, or a river flowing through Utah
to get to California, it also has to be counted as a credit against
Utah's share in addition to the ultimate state. That was adopted in
1977. I do not think it has ever come into play.
I want to indicate how these laws are all entwined and it is not
just a simple matter to walk in and say" I want to change the Compact"
to Congress. Many things will have to be examined in order to make
that work.
Consider the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which is the act that
provided for the operation of the Hoover Dam. At that point and time
the Compact had not been ratified by very many states. Arizona had
not ratified it, and the statute itself required that Arizona
recognize the Compact and the divisions made in the Compact. It also
said that California would have to ratify the Compact and limit its
share to 4.4 million acre-feet. That is when the question of the
California Limitation Act came up and the act was adopted. The act
required that California take that action irrevocably and
uncondi tionally. Those are two very plain words, and very plain words
are helpful when they are found in a statute. Next, the Upper
Colorado River Compact was adopted in 1948. Under that compact the
water in the Upper Basin was allocated [words of the statute] "in
perpetuity" among the Upper Basin states. .
Incidentally, it was also provided in Article IV that any use of.
water by the United States, or its agencies, is chargeable against the
state in which the use occurs. This can be of value as the United
States gains more prominence within the river basin.
CRSPA was adopted in 1956, the Colorado River Storage Project
Act, and that has been addressed. It was adopted to help the Upper
Basin meet the commitment to the Lower Basin. Subsequent to the
Arizona vs. California case, the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
1968 was adopted and Jim discussed that in depth.

25