Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Oi)J1"i8 <br /> <br />Any evaluation of the supply of water available for use to the citizens of Colorado must, of <br />necessity, include a study of the laws which govern the topic. This evaluatioo must concern itself <br />not only with state law, which tells the water administrator how to distribute water as between <br />citizens of the state, but must also consider the ramifications of constitutiooallaw and <br />international law, for Colorado is so situated that tbe streams arising within ber borders are vital <br />to the economics of eighteen other states and the Republic of Mexico. <br /> <br />The consideration of geography alone is enough to make Colorado a prospective defendant <br />in any interstate water case. but consideration of economics appears to be even more important <br />One-twentieth of the land in Colorado is under irrigation, a proportion which exceeds any other <br />stale. Considering irrigation by surface water only, Colorado bas balf again as much land under <br />irrigation as any other state. The ability to protect and defend this huge portion of the state's <br />economy is of major importance to Colorado. <br /> <br />Colorado is directly involved in one international treaty, nine interstate compacts, two U. S. <br />Supreme Cooo decrees, and one interstate agreement., but before a discussion of the treaty, <br />compacts, and decrees, it would seem appropriate to discuss the mechanisms available for the <br />solution of controversies between states. <br /> <br />Three methods are available in the United States for this purpose: <br /> <br />1. Direct legislation by Congress, <br />2. A suit by one state against another in the United States Supreme Court, <br />3. A compact between states approved, where necessary, by Congress. <br /> <br />The first of these methods is very limited in scope, for while Congress has absolute power in <br />administration of territories, its ability to interfere between states is permitted only within its <br />constitutional powers, which in themselves are very limited <br /> <br />The second method is granted by Article m. Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein it <br />grants each state the right to seek redress from legal \1tTOngs before the Supreme Court. This <br />method is a civilized substitution for war between the states, and often the results are as <br />unpredictable. Two major drawbacks can result from this course. The emt is the difficulty in <br />securing execution of a judgment against a state since each is a sovereign body not subject to the <br />laws and actions of the other, necessitating some kind of Federal intervention for enforcement <br />The second drawback, and perhaps the most insurmountable, is that not all matters in dispute <br />between states are capable of judicial determination. <br /> <br />The third method of resolution of interstate controversies is provided for in the U.S. <br />-:; ::~:4=r:Constitu"tion,:i!i,'~~ I,_~on_.l0, aa~'3. ~eiebY!!_~ sta_tc::d__that.,~. ...:"no s"~te~~::~~~~"":"D~:r.'6!7.'~~~-E~;~ <br />'.-' '-:~~"Without theeonsent-o[ COngress: '.\:~. enter 'intO" any-agreement or compact .Witb-8Iiothersfitt;"5i1f.-~~~~-:";:~ <br />with a foreign power: This method provides the advantage of lengthy discussion of the <br />controversy outside of a formal cooo environment by individuals who are knowledgeable on the <br />topic, leading to a mutual undentanding of problems, and hopefully, a mutually beneficial solution <br />in the form of a compact. <br /> <br />1 <br />