My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC05818
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
17000-17999
>
WSPC05818
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:03:06 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:31:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064
Description
Federal Water Rights - Colorado Indian Negotiations
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
12/31/1992
Author
Various
Title
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement - Animas-La Plata
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001538 <br /> <br />Z:~;} . <br /> <br />..~l-!t-; <br />:~~}.::J <br />.,~.;;;,~ <br /> <br />into a Memorandum of Understanding to conserve the population of <br /> <br />the Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker and to proceed with <br /> <br />water development in the San Juan Basin consistent with the <br /> <br />applicable state and fed.eral law and the United States' trust <br /> <br />responsibility to the five tribes situated there. <br /> <br />The point of all this is that Congress has rewritten federal <br /> <br />law applicable to the 1922 Compact in favor of preservation of <br /> <br />endangered species and protection of wetlands, and in so doing <br /> <br />Congress has fundamentally repudiated its c;ommitment to impl.ement <br /> <br />the, 1922 Compac.t. <br /> <br />And thus it is not surprising that the <br /> <br />depletions in the Upper Basin continue to remain at a level not <br /> <br />terribly different. than where they were in 1922. <br /> <br />It is clear that because Congress reserved the power to <br />approve the 1922 Compact, it has the "right" to see to its <br /> <br />enforcement. Virainia v. West Virainia, 246 U.S. 565, 601 (1917). <br /> <br />And its approval changes state compact law to federal law thus <br /> <br />immunizing the compact from commerce claim attack. <br /> <br />Intake Water <br /> <br />Co. v. Yellowstone River Compact, 709 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1985). <br /> <br />But while Congressional approval of a multistate compact requires <br /> <br />the state parties to honor their obligations (here, for example, <br /> <br />the Upper Basin obligation to deliver 75,000,00 acre-feet of water <br /> <br />every ten years to the Lower Basin) it is highly unlikely that the <br />courts would find that federal approval of the 1922 Compact <br />created, in and of itself, a cause of action against the United <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.