|
<br />
<br />110
<br />
<br />WATER LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />Volume 5
<br />
<br />the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of prior appropriation, holding that
<br />the priority of an ap~ropriation provides the superiority of one water
<br />right over another,' further, the Court found the doctrine's
<br />allocation of water no Jess applicable to interstate streams and
<br />controversies than to others," In a concluding statement, Justice Van
<br />Devanter, who delivered the opinion of the Court, stated in reference
<br />to the doctrine and central issue that "its application to such a
<br />controversy as is here presented cannot be other than eminently just
<br />and equitable to all concerned."" F
<br />For those parties coptemplating the creation of an interstate
<br />compact in the La Plata River basin in 1922, the Court had just
<br />provided two guiding legal principles. First, the allocation system of
<br />water between Colorado and New Mexico should equitably satisry the
<br />demands of water users in both states based upon existing needs at
<br />that time. Second, the priority of water rights across state boundaries
<br />must be taken into consideration.
<br />It was within this context of legal, physical, and hydrologic
<br />parameters that the apP9inted state representatives negotiated the
<br />terms and conditions of ail interstate compact at Bishop's Lodge near
<br />Santa Fe, New Mexico." the success of their efforts culminated in the
<br />acceptance and signature pf the La Plata River Compact on November
<br />27,1922.41 The drafters' goals were to provide a tangible and effective
<br />mechanism that would remove all present and future controversies in
<br />the La Plata River basin, to equitably distribute water, and to promote
<br />interstate comity between c:::olorado and New Mexico."
<br />Although the essence: of these three noble precepts is embodied
<br />within the context of sl1veral other interstate river compacts, the
<br />proximity and relationshib among its water users is rather unique to
<br />the La Plata River basin. ") Irrigated land ownership is not based upon
<br />location north or south qf the Colorado-New Mexico state line, and
<br />many water users rely upon ditches in both states to serve their
<br />individual farms and ranches. For example, the Pioneer and
<br />Enterprise Ditches are interstate water conveyance structures that
<br />divert water from the ,La Plata River in Colorado but serve
<br />approximately equal are~ in both states.50 Therefore, in addition to
<br />the other physical, hydrologic, and legal parameters that warranted
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />43. Id. at 496.
<br />44. Wyomingv. Colorado, 2~9 V,S. 419, 424 (1922).
<br />45. Id. at 470. '
<br />46. U.S. 'CONST. art. I, ~ 10" d. 3. The most definitive treatise on the Compact
<br />Clause is Felix Frankfurter &JaJ11es M. Landis, The Compact Clause oltke Constitution-A
<br />Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34YALELJ, 685 (1925).
<br />47. La Plata River Compact, 90LO. REv. STAT, ~ 37-63-101 (2001),43 Stat. 796,
<br />48. Id. '
<br />49. See Colorado River Comi1act, 1923 Colo. Sess, Laws 684, COLO. REv. STAT, ~ 37-
<br />61-101 (2001); South Platte Riv~r Compact, COLO. REv. STAT. ~ 37-65-101 (2001),44
<br />Stat. 195; Rio Grande River Cojnpact, COLO. REv. STAT. ~ 37-66-101 (2001),53 Stat.
<br />785; Republican River Compact,: COLO. REv. STAT. ~ 37-67-101 (2001),57 Stat. 86.
<br />50. See La Plata River Compact, COLO. REv, STAT, art. I, ~ 37-63-101 (2001),43 Stat.
<br />796, 796.
<br />
<br />
|