WSP04706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i fATER LAW REVlEW I ! ! C. FUTILECALL ! , The problems of inte:rstate administration of the La Plata River become especially acute when the measured streamflows at Hesperus decline to the threshold amount of twenty five cubic feet per second. An historic "'working agreement' with the State Engineer's office in New Mexico when the ~w at Hesperus drops to 25 cubic feet per second that Colorado ta es all the water above the confluence of Cherry Creek and New exico takes the flow of water out of Cherry Creek and Long Hollow.", At Hesperus, the strea,m channel typically becomes dry for several miles at intermittent stream reaches in Colorado." When the La Plata River streamflows approa~h this level in which neither an attempted delivery of one-half of t~e flow at Hesperus to the state line nor a rotation schedule flow wO/.tld provide water to New Mexico, Colorado water administration offi~'als are usually called upon to conduct a trial run to attempt delivery." The trial run requires a closely monitored attempt to deliver one-ha f of the flows at Hesperus past all Colorado diversions for a limited a ,ount of time, typically three to four days. If the water does not appe~r at the state line in sufficient quantity to provide the slightest me""ure of beneficial use, the Colorado State Engineer will invoke the fiItile call doctrine.68 Invocation of a futile !call is not a pleasing situation to the water users or compact adminIstration officials in either state because it indicates drought conditi?ns that harm all La Plata River water users. This practice does, howeler, release Colorado from an obligation to deliver water past upstre m diversion headgates and apply the very limited streamflow to b neficia1 use, as opposed to letting water evaporate into the atmpsphere or seep through the streambed unused.59 I . , 114 Volume 5 , D. COMPACT WA11ERADMINISTRATION WITHIN A STATE I An oft-repeated adagf among water users located in the upper reaches of a river or stret is "highority is better than priority." For upstream state water ad inistration officials, a perpetual issue is shepherding water past' : iversion structures and water users in the ! '~l t%j 65. Letter from George E. :ijarc1ay, Colorado State Engineer, to A. Ralph Owens, Colorado State Engineer (Aug. ~9, 1967) (on file with author). 66. See Report of the La ptata River Compact Administration, prepared by the Division VII Irrigation Enginee~9 (1961). 67. See id. tbl. 11. ! 68. See generally COLO. REV. ~TAT. ~,37.92.502 (2001). In its application, the futile call doctrine allows an upstre~m junior out-of-priority water diversion to continue under tim,e and site-specific phy~ical, hydrologic, and climatic conditions. The applied test is that curtailmen~ of the uwstreamjunior water right would not provide sufficient water to the downstream senioriwater for application to beneficial use. Id. 69. See La Plata River Comp~ct, COLO. REV. STAT. art. 11(4), ~ 37.63.101 (2001),43 Stat. 796, 797.