WSP04706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issue 1 THE LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT 109 similar fashion, Mr. Stephen B, Davis represented New Mexico as commissioner and Mr. Charles A. May provided technical expertise." Along with site-specific and technical efforts taking place in the La Plata River Basin, it is important to recognize two United States Supreme Comt decisions that provided legal guidance to the negotiating parties. The first case, Kansas v. Colorado," involved a controversy over the Arkansas River that retained two striking similarities to the ongoing issues in the La Plata River basin. First, neither the La Plata River nor the Arkansas River provides sufficient streamflows to satisty the consumptive water use demands in either state. Second, Colorado water users asserted the right to use all available Arkansas River waters without any delivery obligation to Kansas as the downstream state." The Court's decision, articulated by Justice Brewer, centered upon the cardinal rule of equality among states, which he applied to the allocation of interstate waters. 36 The Court recognized the amount of beneficial use in each state and provided the means to protect those existing uses and inherent values through the principle of equitable apportionment." Essentially, the Court's enunciation of the principle of equitable apportionment provided cogent direction that unregulated diversions and use of water in an upstream state cannot occur to the detriment of the interests of downstream states." Additional guidance in the construction of an interstate river allocation system for the La Plata River came from the 1922 United States Supreme Court decision in Wyoming v. Colorado." Again, Colorado asserted it was entitled to full use of the Laramie River," which originates in the mountains of northern Colorado and flows approximately twenty-seven miles before entering Wyoming. At the time of the proceeding, both states administered their water rights within their respective boundaries in accord with the doctrine of prior appropriation, or the priority system.'l The central issue before the Court was how to equitably apportion these interstate waters-should the Court apply the doctrine of prior appropriation, or some other mechanism that would provide the requisite equity?" In its decision, of Chapter 244, Session Laws of 1921. 1921 Colo. Sess. Laws 803. Mr. Carpenter also served as lead negotiator and Compact Commissioner for the Colorado River Compact, 1923 Colo. Sess. Laws 684, COLO. REv. STAT. ~ 37-61-101 (2001), and the South Platte River Compact, COLO. REv. STAT. ~ 37-65-101 (2001),44 Stat. 195. 33. MEEKER, supra note 16, at 2. 34. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907). 35. Id. at 98. The state of Colorado argued, in part, it had a right to fully appropriate the available water supplies and develop irrigable lands for increasing the value of lands and its inherent prosperity within its boundaries. Id. 36. [d. at 113-14. 37. [d. at 118. 38. [d. at 117-18. 39. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922). 40. [d. at 466. 41. ld. at 465. 42. [d. at 467.