Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,\JiI JUno <br /> <br />Often, great criticism is levelled against the Colorado representatives who were instrumental <br />in the framing of the several compacts to which tbe state is party. These criticisms range from the <br />accusation that they ~gave Qur water away" to the charge tbat they were .sbort-sightedft and should <br />bave been more cognizant of Colorado's tremendous natural resources and its consequent <br />potential for future growth aod need for water. Certainly, the Compact negotiators were not <br />blessed with superhuman abilities and did, in fact. make some questionable decisions, but before <br />judging them too harshly it is imperative that the situatioD, as it existed at the time of negotiation, <br />be understood. <br /> <br />The first area to examine is tbat of tbe prevailing legal mood in the U.S. Supreme Court with <br />respect to the equitable settlement of water controversies. The Supreme Court had decided many <br />interstate controversies, but only two cases pertained to the question of water and irrigation in the <br />arid and relatively unpopulated WesL Colorado was defendant in both of these cases. <br /> <br />The lint case was Kansas v, Colorado (185 U.S. 208; 206 U.S. 46; 1901, 1907). This case <br />concerned the Arkansas River and its depletion by irrigation. From this case, the principle of <br />"equitable apportionment. was evolved, which could be construed to allow one state all or <br />substantially all of the waters of a stream in order to offset other advantages the other state may <br />have. This principle relied heavily on preserving existing developed uses, and the ramifications of <br />this kind of thin Icing were apparent when considering the state of development of Colorado as <br />opposed to California on the Colorado River. <br /> <br />The second landmark case whicb bad great bearing on Colorado's negotiators was Wvomine: <br />v. Colorado (259 U.S. 419, 496; 260 U.S. 1; 1922). 1bis case concerned the waters of the Laramie <br />River, and the Supreme Court upheld the theory that when two contesting states both operate <br />under the doctrine of prior appropriation, tben that doctrine can be applied on an interstate basis. <br />Having been severely limited in these two cases, Colorado's negotiators began to search for a <br />more viable way to protect Colorado's waters for future use. <br /> <br />The second constraint placed on the negotiators was tbe lack of good hydrologic data. For <br />example. in 1922 the historic records indicated a mean annual flow in tbe Colorado River at Lee <br />Ferry of 15,000,000 AF. We now know that the period of record available was a wet one and <br />that the long-term mean flow at Lee Ferry was approximately 13,OOO,CXXl AF per year. In another <br />instance, the streams in the Republican River Compact were allocated, in some instances, on the <br />basis of less than ten years of record. History shows some of these to have been underestimated <br />by as much as 80%. <br /> <br />We see, then, that while the Compacts to which Colorado is a signatory state are restrictive, <br />the potential for much more ~amaging Court decisions existed. _ <br />.-' -~----""'-_~.....o.--...::__.=..:- __..__._.....Ao___ u._."_ - .... -.....__. _ _ ;__ _.~~ ,-~_-~.~~~-';'::t':"""":';';r ..-~ <br />~"'~::!:~~~~-~~th:tw;.bri1fi;a~~idrl~'f~~~~~J~p~~i~.r-.Th~:q{;'fn%~~~~~:r~'-~~:;;~{f~.f.i <br /> <br />way are conclusive or all-encompassing, as each Compact is a very complicated and difficult <br />documenL Any decisions concerning any Compact should be made only after a thorough <br />evaluation of the fuB documenL <br /> <br />2 <br />