WSP04706

• File Number: 8200.400.30.C
• Description: La Plata River Compact
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 9/1/2001
• Author: Kenneth W. Knox
• Title: The La Plata River Compact: Administration of an Ephemeral River in the Arid Southwest
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

Issue 1

THE LA PLATA 1UVER COMPACT

115

[

upper reaches of an interstate river in order to meet the compact
delivery obligations to a downstream state during dry periods. As a
poignant example of this dilemma, on July 5, 1928, the La Plata River
and Cherry Creek Ditch Company ("Ditch Company") filed a lawsuit
in the La Plata County District Court against the Colorado State
Engineer, M. C.Hinderlider. The case ultimately went to the United
States Supreme Court."
For a brief. historical foundation, the United States Congress
approved the La Plata River Compact on January 25, 1925 and the
President promulgated the Compact four days later on January 29.71
During the first two years of operation under the Compact, litde water
flowed across the state boundary and New Mexico water officials
threatened to brinf;1; a lawsuit against Colorado for failure to comply
with the Compact. The water supply improved in 1927 and New
Mexico withdrew its complaint." Unfortunately, drought conditions
returned the next year and in June 1928, the Colorado and New
Mexico State Engineers agreed upon a rotation schedule to effectively
distribute the limited amount of water available at that time in the La
Plata River and maximize the beneficial use in both states in
conformance with Article II, paragraph 3 of the Compact.74 On June
24, 1928, Colorado water officials curtailed all of the irrigation water in
the ditch to permit the entire flow of the river to pass to New Mexico
under the rotation agreement up to the time of filing the complaint."
The consternation felt by shareholders in the La Plata River and
Cherry Creek Ditch was understandable; the structure was Priority No.
6 in the La Plata River system with a June 2, 1890 appropriation date
for 41.5 cubic feet per second, and had never been subject to
curtailment." In its complaint, the Ditch Company put forth two
allegations. First, the actions of the Colorado State Engineer damaged
the crops of the Ditch Company's shareholders. Second, these actions
would cause the Ditch Company irreparable loss if allowed to
continue. The Ditch Company sought a mandatory injunction to
instruct Colorado water officials to administer the La Plata River in
accordance with Colorado water rights and priorities only."

70. See I-linderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 95
(1938).
71. See MEEKER, supra note 16.
72. Letter from J. R. Williams, Colorado State Engineer to Mr. Price Nelson,
Compact Representative for the State Engineer of New Mexico 2 (May 25, 1956) (on
file with author).
73. Id,
74. See Appellant's B.rief at 10, Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch
Co., 304 V.S, 92 (1938) (No. 588).
75. Id. On June 24, 1928, the streamflow at the Hesperus gaging station was fifty.
seven cubic feet per" second and the curtailment at the Company's headgate did not
include four cubic f~et per second which was allowed to be diverted for domestic and
stockwatering purpo~es. Id. at 10-11.
76. Defendant's Answer Brief at 12-13, Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry
Creek Ditch Co., 304 V.S. 92 (1938) (No. 588).
77. Appellant's Brief at 11, Hinderlider(No. 588).