BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to make clear that the doctrine of prior appropriation could not be used by the faster growing Lower Basin states to lay claim to water that would be needed in the future in the Upper Basin. 17 - The Upper Basin's goal was achieved. Several provisions of the Compact limit the Lower Basin's claim on Upper Basin water. The first, of course, is the perpetual allocation of consumptive use made in Article III(a). Even as to water flowing from the Upper to the Lower Basin, Article III(e) provides that no claim can be made except the extent actually needed for domestic and agricultural purposes. Article IV(b) makes power generation subservient to consumption for domestic and agricultural purposes. Finally, Article VIII provides that present perfected rights are unimpaired by the Compact, and all other rights are to be satisfied solely from water apportioned to the basin in which they are situated. 3. The Upper Basin sought to preserve state autonomy in the management, use and regulation of water intrastate. For years, the West had seen far reaching claims of authority asserted by the federal government over the use, allocation and development of western waters." Even in the negotiations of the Compact, the United States made broad claims of superceding authority. I' Therefore, one of the major purposes in negotiating the Compact for the Upper Basin was to resist federal claims of authority, and thereby preserve state regulatory authority. 1924, quoted in Olson atp. 171, fu. 207. Also see, Hundley at pp. 179-180. 17 At one point, Herbert Hoover asked Carpenter, "1 take it that you necessarily deny the whole theory of priority of utilization as between states." Carpenter replied, "Emphatically." 7~ meeting of the Compact Commission, Washington D.C., January 30, 1922. e "The United States intervened in Kansas v. Colorado urging that, by the enactment of the National Reclamation Act, Congress had adopted a policy of national control and supervision over interstate streams. which was to supersede state control, upon a rule of priority of appropriation regardless of state lines. The United States asserted a similar claim in an in-state proceeding in Colorado, in the adjudication of the water rights to the Grand Valley project by local water users. The United States lost the Grand Valley case but continued to assert plenary federal control in other forums. In Wyoming v. Colorado, the federal govemment asserted claim to all the unappropriated water in western streams and rivers. But the Supreme Court found it was not necessary to address the federal claims. The federal government also asserted these claims in federal courts, under the theory that state courts had no jurisdiction over them. 190ttamer Hamele, Chief Counsel of the Reclamation Service, urged that the Compact contain a general reservation of rights by the federal government. He asserted that the Compact was in reality an agreement only among the states, and that the failure to include a reservation of federal rights could jeopardize the prospects for ratification by Congress. When asked by Herbert Hoover for an enumeration of the federal rights, Hamele responded: Why the federal rights are first. the paramount right of navigation, which affects flood control. The United States also has the ownership, I believe, of all of the unappropriated water if the Basin. It has an interest in the building of irrigation works under the national irrigation act. It has rights under the Federal Water Power Act that possibly don't conflict with anything in this compact, but there are possibilities that we could conceive of by which this compact unless they were reserved. It also has rights in connection with its treaties with the Indian tribes. 22" meeting of the Compact Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico, November 22,1922. e