WSP07342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.U ~ .~ .~.~ Colorado River Compact Symposium James S. Lochhead Page 26 principle that any Basin be released Lower Basin. water not needed for use in the upper free of charge if needed for use in the The Compact recognized federal authority in certain areas (such as the Commerce Clause authority noted above, as well as international treaty authority and authority with respect to obligations to Indian Tribes). The Compact has to a large degree prevented the broad assertion of federal control over western water allocation, and has preserved the ability of the states to regulate and allocate water intrastate under their own laws. Under the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Secretary of the Interior w4! given the role of water master in the Lower Basin. The situation in the Upper Basin is entirely differenC, however. The Upper Basin states were able to agree on a compact allocating water among them, so congressional apportionment was not necessary. Therefore, state entitlemenCs are not subject to regulation under federal law, and wacer is not delivered to the Upper Basin states under federal contracts. Obviously, however, not all federal presence was eliminated. The federal government played a tremendous role in water development in the upper Basin. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act may greatly affect water use, development and allocation. This is particularly true with respect to the federal reservoirs on the system. There will always be a tension between state and federal authority, but state and federal agencies currently enjoy a beneficial working relationship. Programs such as the Upper Colorado River Recovery program rely heavily on state law to accomplish their goals. In part, this more collaborative approach can be traced to the assertion of states' rights under the Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act and other laws. The Compact has served to avoid interstate and state-federal litigation. Fundamental questions of interpretation between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin remain to be decided. But the principles of negotiation over settlement are based on mutual respect between che states and with the federal governmenc. This atmosphere, developed in the Compact negotiation process, remains strong today. Each state hopes that the difficult issues chat lie ahead can be resolved through negotiacion. Finally, through Storage project thQ2passage of the 1956 Colorado River Act and the 1968 Colorado River Basin 41 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 340 (1964). 42 43 U.S.C.A. 620 et. seq.