AGO 85-14.
Case Date | September 10, 1985 |
Court | Colorado |
Colorado Attorney General Opinions
1985.
AGO 85-14.
September 10, 1985Department of
Law
Attorney General Opinion FORMAL
OPINION of DUANE WOODARD
Attorney General Opinion No. 85-14
AG Alpha
No. NR WE AGAON Jeris A.
Danielson
State Engineer
Division of Water
Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 818
Denver, CO
80203 RE: Application of House
bill 1070, sec. 6 (May 23, 1985) (to be codified at section 37-81-104,
C.R.S.)Dear Dr. Danielson:
This opinion letter is in response to your letter of July 24,
1985, in which you inquired about the application of House bill 1070, section
6, which amends article 81 of title 37, Colorado Revised Statutes to add a new
section 37-81-104 that authorizes a fee of $50 per acre-foot to be assessed and
collected by the state engineer on water exported from Colorado.
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
Your request for an attorney general's opinion presents the
question:
To what exports of water does the following statutory provision
apply?
To effectuate the purposes of this article, the general assembly
hereby authorizes a fee of fifty dollars per acre-foot to be assessed and
collected by the state engineer on water diverted, carried, stored, or
transported in this state for beneficial use outside this state measured at the
point of release from storage or at the point of diversion.
House bill 1070, sec. 6 (May 23, 1985) (to be codified at section
37-81-104(1), C.R.S.) (hereinafter cited as section 37-81-104(1)).
My conclusion is that the above fee cannot be assessed on any
water exported from Colorado because: (1) Colorado is not entitled to impose a
fee on any export that is authorized by an interstate compact or judicial
decree or is credited as a delivery by Colorado to another state pursuant to a
compact or decree; and (2) in any event, such an export fee violates the
Commerce Clause, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.
ANALYSIS
Can Colorado impose a fee on water exports that are authorized by
an interstate compact or judicial decree or are credited as deliveries by
Colorado to another state pursuant to a compact or decree?
Colorado is bound by nine interstate compacts (fn1) and two
United States Supreme Court decrees (fn2) that equitably apportion the waters
of interstate streams. "Equitable apportionment is the doctrine of federal
common law" developed by the United States Supreme Court in Kansas v. Colorado,
206 U.S. 46 (1907), and succeeding cases, "that governs disputes between States
concerning their rights to use the water of an interstate stream." Colorado v.
New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 183 (1982) (hereinafter cited as Colorado v. New
Mexico I). The doctrine is based on equality of right among states. It does not
require that the waters of an interstate stream be divided equally among the
states through which it flows, but that the states be treated as equals, whose
competing interests must be reconciled, taking into consideration the laws of
the states and all other relevant facts. See, e.g., Connecticut v.
Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 670-671 (1931). The apportionment is truly
equitable, based on an individualized weighing of the equities in the
particular case. See, e.g., Colorado v. New Mexico I, 459 U.S. 176; Kansas v.
Colorado, 206 U.S. 46.
In Kansas v. Colorado, Colorado argued that, as the upper state,
it was entitled to use all the waters of the Arkansas River flowing within its
boundaries, regardless of injury to Kansas. The Supreme Court rejected that
argument. Colorado made the same contention in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S.
419 (1922), and, again, the court rejected it, saying, "The river, throughout
its course in both states, is but a single stream wherein each State has an
interest which should be respected by the other." Id. at 466. More recently, in
Colorado v. New Mexico I, 459 U.S. at 181 n. 8, and Colorado v. New Mexico, 104
S. Ct. 2433, 2442 (1984) (hereinafter cited as Colorado v. New Mexico II), the
United States Supreme Court stated that the "mere fact" that a river originates
in a state does not automatically entitle a state to a share of the water. In
Colorado v. New Mexico II, in which the Court held that Colorado was not
entitled to an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Vermejo River for
its proposed future uses, the Court stated that "the equitable apportionment of
appropriated rights should turn on the benefits, harms, and efficiencies of
competing uses, and ... the source of the Vermejo River's waters should be
essentially irrelevant to the adjudication of these sovereigns' competing
claims." 104 S. Ct. at 2442.
It is clear from the above cases that Colorado is not entitled to
assert a superior claim to all the waters of an interstate stream that flow
through the state simply because the waters originate in Colorado and Colorado
can physically cut off the flow to downstream states. It follows from this
that, under federal common law, Colorado has no right to charge another state,
or its water users, a fee for the delivery of that state's equitable share of
water. Therefore, no fee can be charged for any water delivered to another
state pursuant to a court decree equitably apportioning the waters of an
interstate stream.
The same result obtains for water delivered to another state
pursuant to an interstate compact. Interstate compacts are agreements between
states, ratified by Congress, that allocate the waters of interstate streams.
Such compacts are intended to make an equitable apportionment by consent,
rather than litigation. See, e.g., the Colorado River Compact, section
37-61-101, art. I, C.R.S. (1973); the Arkansas River Compact, section
37-69-101, art. I, C.R.S. (1973). Since interstate compacts purport to
equitably divide the waters of interstate streams, it would be inconsistent
with the underlying common law doctrine, as well as a probable violation of the
compact, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial