PUB00126

• Year: 2000
• Title: Overview of the Rio Grande Compact: Colorado Perspectives
• CWCB Section: Interstate & Federal
• Description: Overview of the Rio Grande Compact: Colorado Perspectives
• Publications - Doc Type: Tech Report

';

~ ;

Any evaluation of the supply of water available for use to the c~tizens of Colorado must, of
necessity, include a study of the laws which govern the topic. This evllluation must concern itself not
only with state law, which tells the water administrator how to distribu\~ water as between citizens of
the state, but must also consider the ramifications of constitutional law i\1Jd international law , for
Colorado is so situated that the streams arising within her borders are vital to the economics of
eighteen other states and the Republic of Mexico. .

The consideration of geography alone is enough to make Colora~o a prospective defendant in
any interstate water case, but consideration of economics appears to be ,~ven more important. One-
twentieth of the land in Colorado is under irrigation, a proportion whic~iexCeeds any other state.
Considering irrigation by surface water only, Colorado has half again ll$;<much land under irrigation
as any other state. The ability to protect and defend this huge portion o~ the state's economy is of
major importance to Colorado. .

Colorado is directly involved in one international treaty, nine interstate compacts, two U. S.
Supreme Court decrees, and one interstate agreement, but before a disc4ssion of the treaty,
compacts, and decrees, it would seem appropriate to discuss the mechanjsms available for the solution
of controversies between states.

Three methods are available in the United States for this purpos4:

1. Direct legislation by Congress,
2. A suit by one state against another in the United States ~upreme Court,
3. A compact between states approved, where necessary, by Congress.

The first of these methods is very limited in scope, for while Cqpgress has absolute power in
administration of territories, its ability to interfere between states is perrrl,,itted only within its
constitutional powers, which in themselves are very limited.'

The second method is granted by Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein it
grants each state the right to seek redress from legal wrongs before the ~upreme Court. This method
is a civilized substitution for war between the states, and often the resul~ are as unpredictable. Two
major drawbacks can result from this course. The first is the difficulty ill securing execution of a
judgment against a state since each is a sovereign body not subject to theiJaws and actions of the
other, necessitating some kind of Federal intervention for enforcement. .1fhe second drawback, and
perhaps the most insurmountable, is that not all matters in dispute betwe~n states are capable of
judicial determination. -

The third method of resolution of interstate controversies is provided for in the U.S.
Constitution in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, whereby it is stated that, 1'. . . no state shall, without
the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or compact with ,~other state, or with a
foreign power". This method provides the advantage of lengthy discussilln of the controversy outside
of a formal court environment by individuals who are knowledgeable onitpe topic, leading to a mutual
understanding of problems, and hopefully, a mutually beneficial solution'Un the form of a compact.