BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ultimately, the Compact did address several of the specific federal powers that had been discussed by the Commissioners. The Compact made explicit in Article VIII that vested water rights were unaffected by the Compact. The right to consumptively use unappropriated water was specifically apportioned to the states by Articles III (a) and (b). The Compact reserved the authority of the United States to enter into a treaty with Mexico, specifying in Article III (c) only which waters would be used to satisfy any such obligation. Article VII specifically left the question of quantification of Indian reserved water rights for future resolution, although it would appear that use of reserved rights is charged against the basin in which the use is made. Article IV acknowledged that the river was not navigable-in-fact, and made uses for navigation subservient to domestic, agriculture and power purposes (but reserving tile authority of Congress to disapprove of this paragraph). The Upper Basin asserted that the Compact preserved the autonomy of the states to regulate and allocate water under their own state systems." 4, The Upper Basin sought to avoid the threat of interstate litigation among the states and between the states and the federal government. The Compact does in fact include as part of its purposes in Article I, "to promote interstate comity," and "to remove causes of present and future controversies. . ."21 5. The Upper Basin sought to create a foundation for the comprehensive developmeut and regulation of the river. The primary motivation for California to enter into compact negotiations was the prospect of gaining political support for construction of a large reservoir on the lower river to control floods and regulate water supply. However, all the commissioners were aware of the wildly fluctuating nature of the river flow, and the need for comprehensive reservoir development if security in any allocation among the states was to be achieved. "After the Compact was fmalized, Carpenter addressed the Compact's intent to preserve intrastate regulation of water through the prior appropriation system: Intrastate control of appropriations made within the apportionments provided by the compact is specifically reserved by paragraph (c) Article IV. This includes such regulations as each state may provide by its constitution and laws respecting the preference of one class of use over other classes of use. In other words the constitution and laws of Colorado control the details of appropriation, use and distribution of water within the state. The compact does not attempt to invade such matters of local concern. When approved, the compact will be the law of the river as between the states. It deals wholly with interstate relations. This paragraph refers to intrastate control. Whatever the intrastate regulation and control may be it cannot effect the interstate relations. No law of any state can have extraterritorial effect or interfere with the operation of the compact as between the states. Supplemental Report. These theories were later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1937). "Following the compact negotiations, Delph Carpenter stated: "The Colorado River Compact was conceived and concluded for the purpose of preserving the autonomy of the states, of defining the respective jurisdictions of the states and of the United States and of assuring the peace and future prosperity of an immense part of our national territory. With it there will be no overriding of state authority by national agencies. Otherwise, interstate and state-national conflict, strife, rivalry and interminable litigation will be inevitable." Statement for the Upper Colorado River States regarding Bill for Boulder Canon Dam, before Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House of Representatives, Washington D.C., 1926.