WSP04404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OC1257 ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT 39 requirement was kePt constantly in mind during the compact negotiations. The resulting provIsions for apportionment with specified flexibility as set forth in article V and with adminIstrative machinery as provided in artcle VIII were designed to that end Rud should prove satisfactory to all concerned in actual practice. SECTION .7. INTERESTS OF UBP.ER A~D LOWER S:rATEs Although irrigation usage. and its accompanying problem of interstate appor- tionment of the waters of the Arkansas are. confined to southeastern Colorado aud western Kansas the river, io-its course from its headwaters to its con- fiuence with the Mis~lsslPPit also 'flows thl'ough portions of the States of New Mexico Oklahoma Rud Arkansas. It is appropriate, therefore, in this report to touch upon the 'interests, if any, which these other States might have in the proposed compact between Colorado and Kansas. It happens that small, isolated watershed areas, aggregating approximat~lY' 150 square mUes of the headwater tributaries of the, Purgatoire River, WhICh joins the main stem of the Arkansas near the ,upper end .of the John Martin Reservoir, are located in New Me'Xico. By virtue of that fact, New Mexico may be regarded as a so-called upper State on the Arkansas River in relation to Colorado (and Kansas). However, the insignificant quantity of river flow de~ rived from these small areas and their nature and develo:pment are actuall~y such as ta make them inconsequential with respect to the propased campact. Recagnition of the physical situation and the legal status pertaining- ta the 'watershed areas at the Arkansas River which lie in New Mexic.o is contained in article -IV-B of the propased compact. The pecuUar physiagraphy .of the Arkansas Hiver Basin in western Kansas prevents that reach of the river fram receiving any tributary inflaw .of conse- quence and from cantributing materially to the flaw .of the lawer river through sautheastern Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. In effect, therefore, the Arkan~ sas RIver of western- Kansas may be considered as a minor tributary of the lower rIver. This conditian is recognized in the'caIllprehensive plan of multiple- purpose development for the lo~er Arkansas Basin which has been authorlzed by Congress. The lower States are not in the arid region: their problem is mainly flood contral. Hence, irrigation usage in the upper States .of Calorad.o and Kansas does not affect the interests of the lawer States in the waters of the interstate' stream. Indeed, if any detrimental effect downstream were involved, Kansas herself would be concerned. In view of the conclusion that there is no valid interest in the proposed compact on the part of the lower States-viz, Oklahoma and Arkansas-the compact is propetIy :silent on, the subject. The relative rights and paramauntcy of use of waters as between' upper and lawer States must also be considered in the light of Federal interests and policies as asserted in prevalling legisatlon. Section 1 (b) of the Flood Contral Act appraved December 22, 1944, and of the River ,and Harbor Act appraved March 2, 1945, provide that- . . l"rhe use for navigation, in connection with the operation and maintenance of such wor}t!3 herein autharized for construction, of waters. arising in States-lying wholly or -partly, west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be .only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial - consumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety~eighth meridian, of such waters for damestic, lllunicip~l, stock water, irrigation, mining, .or industrial purposes.'! This provision of the 1945 River and Harbor Act was extended under a special prOVision of the River and Harbor Act approved' July 24, 1946, sa as'tQ make power, as well -as navi~atlon, subservient to, beneficial consumptive use with respect ta the Arkansas River and its tributaries. Inasmuch as both Colorada and. Kansas are States lying wholly .or partly west of the ninety~elghth meridian, they rely an the above acts of Congress to safeguard their irrigation interests a'p:ainst water demands for navigatian and power in the l.ower States. This position has the concurrence -of all affected Federal agencies; vlz, Department of the Interiar; Corps ,of Engi,neers, and Federal Power CommIssion. In view of the States' dependence on the existing legislation cited ab.ove, the prOl)osed compact makes no mention of paramountcy. It is l'eco.2:nized, however. both by the signatory States and by the affected Federal agencies, that the legi:;;latlon being relied upon is of the nature-of special legislat.ion fot' specific cases wblch has han. to be reenacted for each succeed1n~ Cflse. It Is presumed that this practIce will be conUnued 'by the Cangress unless -,.,;,. ,.