WSP03228

• File Number: 8200.700
• Description: Colorado River - Colorado River Basin - Colorado River Basin General Publications/Issues
• State: CO
• Date: 6/1/1990
• Author: Jeris A Danielson
• Title: A Summary of Compacts and Litigation Governing Colorados use of Interstate Streams
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

1)1I~li,,5

Any evaluation of the supply of water available for use to tbe citizens of Colorado must, of
necessity, include a study of the laws which govern the topic. This evaluation must concern itself
not only with state law, which tells the water administrator how to distribute water as between
citizens of the state, but must also consider tbe ramifications of constitutional law and
international Jaw, for Colorado is so situated that tbe streams arising within her borders are vital
to the economics of eighteen other states and the Republic of Mexico.

The consideration of geography alone is enough to make Colorado a prospective ddendant
in any interstate water case, but consideration of economics appears to be even more important.
One-twentieth of the land in Colorado is under irrigation. a proponion whicb exceeds any other
state. Considering irrigation by surface water only, Colorado has half again as much land under
irrigation as any other state. The ability to protect aod defend this huge portion of the state's
economy is of major importance to Colorado.

Colorado is directly involved in one international treaty, nine interstate compacts, two U. S.
Supreme Court decrees, and one interstate agreement, but before a discussion of the treaty,
compacts, and decrees, it would seem appropriate to discuss the mechanisms available for the
solution of controversies between states.

Three methods are available in the United States for this purpose:

1. Direct legislation by Congress,
2. A suit by one state agaiost another in the United States Supreme Court,
3. A compact between states approved, where necessary, by Congress.

The fint of these methods is very limited in scope, for while Congress has absolute power in
administration of territories, its ability to interfere between states is permitted only within its
constitutional powers, which in themselves are very limited.

The second method is granted by Article ill, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, wherein it
grants eacb state the right to seek redress from legal wrongs before the Supreme Coun. This
method is a civilized substitution for war between the states, and often the results are as
unpredictable. Two major drawbacks can result from this course. The first is the difficulty in
securing execution of a judgment against a state since each is a sovereign body not subject to the
laws and actions of the other, necessitating some kind of Federal intervention for enforcement
The second drawback, and perhaps the most insurmountable, is tbat not all matters in dispute
between states are capable of judicial determination.

The third method of resolution of interstate controversies is provided for in tbe U.S.
~:'7~~ ~]',-COnstitution -m 'A!1icle L Section 10, aause.3;~~ Jt is Slated ~at, -. . :;,.-no state'-mal!;:,;~~~i".(ti'lf:~;;!;i.~~~~:::',
'''-'''i:'.~ Witbout the roi1sent"of cOri~:'j:-": enter 1Dtci~an}i'';agreement- otcompact .Witb~anothersfa1~;~or'W~~~_~i''-':S
witb a foreign power.- This method provides the advantage of lengthy discussion of the
controversy outside of a formal court environment by individuals who are knowledgeable on the
topic, leading to a mutual understanding of problems, and hopefully, a mutually beneficial solution
in the form of a compact.

1