Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(0 <br />0'.) <br />"... <br />..-4 <br />,:":l <br />r~ <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />One hears a great deal about the Compact, more con than pro. Misinformation <br />about it is plentiful. It is a complicated document. It could not be <br />simple because of the complex situation which is its subject. Perhaps the <br />wisest perspective is to simply view the Compact as a fact of life. It was <br />argued all the way up to the V.S, Supreme Court and stood. In fact, the <br />1966 u.s. Supreme Court case was IIcontinued" and a formal ruling was not <br />made. The parties essentially settled out of court for the same reasons <br />private individuals faced with a lawsuit would. The States faced a small <br />chance of coming out of court a little better off than they went in, a <br />small chance of coming out a lot worse, the probability of coming out about <br />the same, and a 100 percent certainty that the lawyer's bill would be <br />waiting regardless of the outcome. Colorado promised to IEet the annual <br />water delivery requirements of the Compact. However, the State refused to <br />formally acknowledge the 900,000 acre-feet "water debt" which New Mexico <br />and Texas maintained that Colorado has built up by allegedly failing con- <br />sistently to meet annual deliveries scheduled by the Compact between 1939 <br />and 1966. Colorado did promise to attempt to "payoff" the alleged debt as <br />a gesture of "good will." The other States and the court agreed to put the <br />case "on ho Id," provided that Colorado did mee tit s Compac t ob ligat ion <br />every year. <br /> <br />/ <br />V <br /> <br />To return to the IICompact-as-a-fact-of-lifett concept; Valley residents who <br />maintain that the Compact is unfair are simply wrong. Those who say that <br />it is a darned nuisance have a pretty good point. Things would be simpler <br />if the Valley could just use all the water it wanted to without worrying <br />about whether any water at all flowed downstream. That would not be fair. <br />The fact that some water must flow downstream is not even an open question. <br />How much and how that "hOl' much" is to be accomplished are what the argu- <br />ments are all about. A few facts about the compact may advance the goal of <br />1I1iving with it.1I <br /> <br />The overall purpose of the Compact is to assure that the relationship of <br />annual flows across State boundaries which had developed by the early 20th <br />century is maintained. This does not mean that the same fixed absolute <br />quantity is supposed to flow across each State's boundaries every year. The <br />terms of the Compact are flexible. They recognize variations in natural <br />flows from year to year and anticipate that new sources of water for the <br />Rio Grande Basin ,wuld develop over the years. It is worth remembering <br />that Colorado has the most difficulty meeting its delivery requirement in <br />years when the river's flow is high. In years of low to average flo\{, the <br />requirements are so small that they can be met almost without being <br />noticed. The Compact also has provisions which let the States accumulate <br />water credits and debts, but it does prevent any' State from accumulating so <br />much "credit" that it could shut off riverflOl' to the downstream State for <br />1 or several years. Such action would ruin thousands of farmers. Both the <br />Compact and the Treaty with Mexico are negotiated agreements, one probably <br />hears about as much complaining about them on every side of the various <br />borders. A basic rule of international diplomacy appears to apply. If all <br />of the parties to an agreement are unhappy with it, the agreement is almost <br />surely a fair one. <br />