Laserfiche WebLink
<br />upper Rio Grande area was denied opportunities for d~velopment for <br />almost thirty years. <br />It is not altogether clear when Carpenter began studying this <br />issue, but by the time formal discussions of the Rio Grande Compact were <br />initiated in 1924, it was said that he "had been connected with this <br />work for a great many years and [was considered] a most astute <br />individual besides being fully informed with the entire history of the <br />difficulty and all its ramifications.n9 More important, Carpenter <br />learned some meaningful lessons from the Rio Grande situation: (1) that <br />while the United States as headwaters nation had a perfect right to <br />utiliz$ all of the flow of the Rio Grande under international law, a <br />better policy was to respect the needs of Mexico and settle the issue by <br />treatYi10 (2) that the Reclamation Service had the ability to retard <br />state development by imposing its will without consulting local <br />authorities; (3) that under the prior appropriation doctrine, headwaters <br />states would be at a disadvantage in interstate stream litigation if <br />lower states could prove prior use of water on the same stream; and (4) <br />that protection of future economic development for headwaters states <br />could only be achieved by signing a compact before agreeing to <br />construction of storage reservoirs and canals. Under prior <br />appropriation, Carpenter believed, states benefitting from government <br />financed reclamation projects benefited additionally from a superior <br />legal claim to stored water. For a headwaters state like Colorado, <br />rapid development in the lower basin enhanced by a federally financed <br />storage reservoir could be disastrous. <br />In 1907, a year after the Root-Casasus Treaty was signed, the <br />United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Kansas v. <br />ColorMoo. To Carpenter, the Court's opinion was Uthe most illuminating <br />discussion to be found upon the subject of interstate water law."il <br />Kansas, a riparian state, claimed that Colorado (prior appropriation) <br />was not allowing continuous and uninterrupted flow of the Arkansas <br />River. Colorado wanted absolute dominion and exclusive use of the water <br />originating within its borders. The Court decided that Kansas had <br /> <br />6 <br />