|
<br />I.-
<br />
<br />
<br />53.+
<br />
<br />C:--lIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. 57
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />originates:"- a subsequent paragraph adds. "Only excess and surplus
<br />water should be utilized outside the areas of origin and citizens within
<br />the areas of ori>rin have a prior ri~ht to Water ori~inating therein to the
<br />extent that it may be required for beneficial use therein."" The
<br />Oklahoma \Vater Resources Board has defined excess and surplus
<br />water as "that amoum of water which is greater than the present or
<br />reasonable forseeable [sic] future water requirements needed to satisfy
<br />all beneficial uses within an area of origin,""
<br />In the interstate context, waters have been formally allocated by
<br />two general means-interstate compacts and court-decreed equitable
<br />apportionment. The Colorado River Compact of 192230 is the classic
<br />example of an interstate compact designed (in part) to insure the fu-
<br />ture availability of water for the areas of origin of the Colorado River.
<br />Colorado and other upper basin states were concerned that rapid
<br />growth in southern California would result in full appropriation of the
<br />Colorado River. leaving nothing for their own later development. The
<br />permanent division of water incorporated in the compact arrangement
<br />was intended to protect development interests in these upstream
<br />states.31
<br />Since the 1907 case of Kansas v. Colorado," the V.S, Supreme
<br />Court has taken original jurisdiction in litigation between states reo
<br />garding interstate waters, In general, the Court has applied the law of
<br />prior appropriation in cases involving states recognizing this doc,
<br />trineD Not surpnsingly, the emphasis is generally on protection of
<br />existing uses and provision for apparent new uses, Area.of-ongin pro-
<br />tection has not played a significant role in court decisions under this
<br />doctrine,
<br />
<br />OKL\. ST,\T A......... lie 32. ~ IOllb J(,\.IIW<:\1 Supp. ]Q8S1
<br />~g. [d. ~ I086.I(al(.J.}.
<br />!Q Oklahoma WJ.r~r R~ource-s Bo.Jrd Rul~<;. Regulations and ~odes of Procedure ~ 125.: (I'nc,.
<br />Re\'lsionl. In a ca~e tn::ll na::. been /kotiJre fAe Okbhoma Supreme Coun since 198J. one ollhe IS~Ues i::.
<br />whether oUI-Qf.basln dp.aslon:,> remain subject fO pos~lble "rec.;aW' by subsequent appropnalors In the
<br />ba:"tn of origin. Oklahoma \I,'ah:!r Re'>ource~ Rd. v. Fr:mco.Amencan Charol:!.lse. Ltd., '-10 ~~.31O
<br />IOLda. riled m 1~8Jl. The Bllard', f'lO,illl1n I~ eh:H fJr;ll<:!Ction ;'i provided only to lho~e m [he area Ill'
<br />Of1~ln hold'n~ water n!;n{~ l1f applic..1tl0n, for W..l\er n!;hts J.( che ome of .:.IppJic;Ullln IN an ()uI.o'-,b:Nn
<br />Ji~er<;lOn. Appellan!'::. BrH~1 Jt 31, Ol..l.:.lhnma "'afer Rt"~()urce\ Bd.. ;-':11. 5Q,::;\0 Thc Ul..bh(lma Di,.
<br />InCl CIJurt had d~,ded Ih::u the ngnl'i bemg ....,lughl 111 enl.... ~'a.'.: mU::'1 be mad~ "~lIhJCCI 1,1 reCJIl"' h~
<br />....ubo;.equent user') wHhm che ~lrc:Jm '~'lem ,II ,)rigm.
<br />:0 ACI lIf Aug, I Q. I ~~ l. ..:h. 7:, ~2 SIal. 171 (1 Q: lllfhe L"nma.J~'1 \lIJ, \lgllCU in S:lC1la Fe. ~.:w
<br />;\1(,,11.:1' ISn~ ':-l. IQ~21. ,,'0: ~J L.S.C. ~ 01"7( \~l'll {I~:'l!\l. The .-\1.:1 ......t~ ..Iprf(l~eu h~ Cvn~r~~~ III Ih~
<br />Boulder C..llI~l)O Proj~C'1 A<:t ~h. .1:. ~ 1_~. .1~ "_lI 100.1 l IQ2~1 (C'lld1l1.:U a~ ~,~ C.s.c. ~ ol':'oIi I )<)3~))
<br />j 1 Indc~d lhe h"'~r t-J~m ~Iale.. ha\': hlllg 'InC'C Ji\l'rfe!.l lh('lr '-ul! ~llllllemenl vI - ~ ",,1I1111\
<br />.;~'r.:"'!;"'er :",<,"f :.::"')f \~h,l., !~.: \l1';':r ";'~"1 '1.LI~'~ :1,.\': \':1 [ll Jrrl\ IhO::lr ~ull 'h..lro:: h' "t"l!t'lld,!1 1!~':
<br />_:: :'.It> 1_' S J" <I"Ii~ I
<br />
<br />:: :-;'<:1::' 'I~,' ",..:o:::knl .j"'Ll"h'll j,\ r ..ri,..I... 11r,' I..;" ,,/ ,(:IlII/:l1hi,' '!Crl'?,"''''''', '." ,1.,', "'''1,'(; 1,-.
<br />
<br />./o.J:.'l1 .;':,; Rc'V,,:I<'d.:t['l L. (,II () L I{l \ .'_~\ 11Ll~~1.
<br />
|