My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, <br /> <br />lation affecting exports to nOlrbasin states may b~ a way of providing more <br /> <br />reliable supplies for states in the basin. The Supreme Court has held that <br /> <br />laus regulating water export must pass constitutional muster under the com- <br /> <br />100 <br />merce clause. This may allow restrictions on the use of water out of state <br /> <br />only when the state strictly regulates water use within state borders. Thus, <br /> <br />a state's even-handed measures demanded by shortages to protect "the health of <br /> <br />its citizens...not simply the health of its economy" will be given defer- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />lUl <br />ence. Further, anti-export legislation needed to facilitate compliance <br /> <br />with the law of the river may not be subject to the same limitations as other <br /> <br />embargoes. The Constitution allows Congress to restrain or regulate inter- <br /> <br />state commerce as it sees fit or to authorize the states to do so. Because <br /> <br />Congress has been intimately involved in allocating the interstate waters of <br /> <br />the Colorado, state restrictions needed to carry out the congressionally <br />~ <br />approved allocation scheme~not~ subject to the implied restraints of the <br />JV ~ <br /> <br />commerce clause that normally inhibit state action.102 <br /> <br />(shl) <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />We have attempted only to suggest some future problems of the river and <br /> <br />some possible solutions. We are confident that there will be clashes among <br /> <br />those who have "rights" under compact, under state law, or under acts of <br /> <br />Congress. Some will not get water. The consequences of denial will be less <br /> <br />painful and the costs will be lower if problems can be anticipated before a <br /> <br />crisis arises. It is necessary that the river's great resource be allocated <br /> <br />and used with a keen awareness of their limitations and their great value to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />the West and to the nation. That awareness can be reflected in deliberate <br /> <br />changes in the law of the river, changes in state ~ater laws, emergence of a <br /> <br />free market in water rights, or it can be a drought-induced accident. The <br /> <br />- 2Y - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.