7368 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- cut off the water already being used by Coloradans simply to provide more water to Kansas. But the Court did not rule in Colorado's favor simply because its uses were "senior" to uses in Kansas. Rather, the Court engaged in a balancing act to determine what allocation of water was "fair" to each of the disputants and concluded that the statue quo was "fair". Thus the Court allowed Colorado to continue its diversions for the time being, with the proviso that Kansas could institute a new suit if Colorado increased its depletions. Over the years, the Supreme Court has heard eleven cases in which decrees were sought allocating water on interstate streams. No hard and fast rules have emerged from this history of litigation. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has ruled on an ad hoc basis, considering whatever evidence on the issue of equity it found appropriate at the time. Recently, however, considerations of water conservation and efficiency of use have become a part of the debate. In the most recent case, Colorado sued New Mexico'0 charging that New Mexico was wasting water taken from the Vermejo River. Although the water uses in New Mexico were longstanding and therefore "senior' to Colorado's potential uses of the river in the future, Colorado asked the Supreme Court to consider the inefficiency of New Mexico's irrigation system. The Special Master appointed by the Court to hear the facts found that "the heart of New Mexico's water problem is the Vermejo Conservancy District" which he considered a failed reclamation project that "quite possibly should never have been built". The Court nevertheless determined that Colorado should not be able to force New Mexico to improve the efficiency of the project to free up water for Colorado's use, because Colorado had not demonstrated any stronger water conservation program of its own. This important case demonstrates the possibility that in the future, water may be shifted by the Supreme Court from one state to another on the basis of relative efficiency of use. The case should serve as a prod to all western states to eliminate wasteful water use practices. WhooDinsr Cranes sad Interstate Water Eighty-two years of equitable apportionment law will soon be put to the test in a conflict over the maintenance of habitat for the endangered whooping crane and other migratory birds in the "Big Bend" reach of the Platte. For over a decade, battles have raged between conservation organizations and water developers over the waters of that Arkansas River: Bois de Sioug: Chicago River: Colorado River: Columbia & Snake Rivers: Connecticut River: Delaware River: Laramie River: North Platte River: Vermejo River: Walls Walla River: Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907), prior history, 185 U.S. 125 (1902), subsequent history. Colorado v. Kansas. 320 U.S. 383 (1943). North Dakota v. Minnesota. 263 U.S. 365 (1923). Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906). Arizona v. California. 373 U.S. 646 (1963), decree entered, 439 U.S. 419 (1979), decree modified. 460 U.S. 605 (1983). Idaho v. Oreeon, 462 U.S. 1017 (1983) (dealing with anadromous fish). Connecticut v. Massachusetts. 282 U.S. 660 (1931). New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931), decree amended, 347 U.S. 995 (1954). Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922), decree modified. 260 U.S. 1 (1922), new decree entered, 853 U.S. 953 (1957). Nebraska v. Wvomine, 325 U.S. 589 (1945), decree modified. 345 U.S. 981 (1953), petition to reoven, sub nom., Nebraska v. Wvomine, No. 108, Original (filed Oct. 6, 1986) Colorado v. New Me~co, 467 U.S. 310 (1984). Washineton v. Oreeon. 297 U.S. 61? (1936). '°Colorado v. New Me~dco, 46? U.S. 310 (1984).