Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,000328 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the existing agricultural economy. Problems under the compact <br /> <br />began' to surface within a few years. <br /> <br />Approximately twenty years ago the State of Texas <br /> <br />initiated a suit against New Mexico in the united states Supreme <br /> <br />Court in wllich it was alleged that New Mexico was not living up <br /> <br />to its compact agreement. The united States intervened as an <br /> <br />indispensable party but withheld its consent to be sued. The suit <br /> <br />was dismissed. Subsequently New Mexico, with considerable federal <br /> <br />assistance. improved its delivery capability through extensive <br /> <br />channel rectification measures on the lower Rio Grande. <br /> <br />In more recent years the states of Texas and New Mexico <br /> <br />have instituted proceedings against the state of Colorado in the <br /> <br />Supreme Court alleging that Colorado is in violation of the terms <br /> <br />of the Rio Grande River Compact. By order dated February 13, 1967, <br /> <br />the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to submit the views <br /> <br />of the United States on the pending action. In his reply to the <br /> <br />court, the Solicitor General made this recommendation: <br /> <br />"We suggest, therefore, that the Court stay any fur- <br />ther action in this case for six months, until October <br />16, 1967. That would afford a reasonable time for the <br />interested parties to demonstrate the feasibility and <br />imminence of an equitable administrative solution. In <br />the meantime the united States will explore the matter <br />of an administrative solution in conjunction with the three <br />states. If at the end of this period it appears that the <br />matter can be resolved only by litigation, we shall then in- <br />form the Court \1,'lether the united States will intervene." <br /> <br />-6- <br />