Laserfiche WebLink
<br />." <br /> <br />Colo~ado River Compact symposium <br />James s. Lochhead <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />It was natural, then, if Carpenter was upset at Hamele in <br />the Compact negotiating session when Hamele raised these <br />same federal claims to all unappropriated water. <br />Fortunately for Carpenter (and for the prospects for an <br />agreement), Hoover came to his defense. Hoover said to <br />Hamele: <br /> <br />Well, we have provided here for an apportionment. That <br />apportionment is not yet appropriated water. If the <br />federal government should intervene and say that the <br />unappropriated water was its possession and province, <br />it woula5destroy this entire apportionment between the <br />states. <br /> <br />Ultimately, the Compact did address several of the specific <br />federal powers that had been discussed by the Commissioners. <br />The Compact made explicit in Article VIII that vested water <br />rights were unaffected by the compact. The right to <br />consumptively use unappropriated water was specifically <br />apportioned to the states by Articles III (a) and (b). The <br />Compact reserved the authority of the United States to enter <br />into a treaty with Mexico, specifying in Article III (c). <br />only which waters would be used to satisfy any such <br />obligation. Article VII specifically left the question of <br />quantification of Indian reserved water rights for future <br />resolution, although it would appear that use of reserved <br />rights is charged against the basin in which the use is <br />made. Article IV acknowledged that the river was not <br />navigable-in-fact, and made uses for navigation subservient <br />to domestic, agriculture and power purposes (but reserving <br />the authority of Congress to disapprove of this paragraph). <br />Finally, Carpenter asserted that the Compact preserved the <br />autonomy of the states to regulate and allocate water under <br />their own state systems. <br /> <br />After the Compact was finalized, Carpenter addressed the <br />Compact's intent to preserve intrastate regulation of water <br />through the prior appropriation system: <br /> <br />Intrastate control of appropriations made within the <br />apportionments provided by the compact is specifically <br />~eserved by paragraph (c) Article IV. This includes <br />such regulations as each state may provide by its <br />constitution and laws respecting the preference of one <br />class of use over other classes of use. In other words <br />the constitution and laws of Colorado control the <br />details of appropriation, use and distribution of water <br />within the state. The compact does not attempt to <br />invade such matters of local concern. When approved, <br />25 nd <br />22 meeting of the Compact commission, Santa Fe, New <br />Mexico, November 22, 1922. <br />