Compact is sore point



By LARRY WINGET

LA JARA — The Alamosa River, La Jara Creek Water Conservancy District wants to know if the state is planning to expand the Rio Grande River Compact between Colorado, Texas and New Mexico.

The Rio Grande River Compact was signed in 1938 and states in part that Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico “desiring to remove all causes of present and future controversy among these states...with respect to the use of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas...for the purpose of effecting an equitable apportionment of such waters, have resolved to conclude a compact for the attainment of these purposes...”

Now, the Alamosa and La Jara Conservancy District is concerned that Colorado is trying to include their streams as part of the compact.

John Shawcroft, of the district, called a meeting of the organization in La Jara right before Christmas to discuss the situation.

Shawcroft and Conservancy District attorney Steve Atencio explained their concerns during the meeting.

According to the two, a water lawsuit brought against the state in the names of Reed, Reynolds, and the Martin Cattle Company may be a chance for the state to include La Jara Creek and Alamosa River waters in the Rio Grande Compact. The compact is something of a sore spot for Valley irrigation users as it requires Colorado to send water down the Rio Grande to Texas and New Mexico.

It is the La Jara Water Conservancy District’s position that its waters are not a part of the compact and never have been. Shawcroft asked the district’s members to take part in the Reed, Reynolds, Martin suit to make sure it stays that way.

Atencio said he would not discuss the merits of that case, because he did not have the legal briefs available and he did not want to discuss ongoing litigation in public. Atencio suggested that the district take part in the suit only to resolve the question of whether the case is one of water administration or if the state is trying to make it a case of Rio Grande compact administration.

A spokesman close to the lawsuit, who did not want to go on record, said it started in 2006 when the district called for La Jara Creek water it has traditionally used. That water was not delivered and it was found that the state had closed a headgate to stop the flow. The lawsuit was then filed against the state. The problems arose from language used by the state in reply to the suit. Colorado said allowing the diversion of La Jara Creek water would adversely affect its ability to administer the Rio Grande Compact.

If the district does join the suit, Atencio suggested it should only participate until the question of whether the case is one of administering water or administering the compact is settled. It was stated in the meeting that the suit involves more than one aspect and the district should be aware of “underlying issues” before it commits to joining the suit.

Atencio said the district should make it clear they were joining the suit only to resolve the water or compact administration question.

Shawcroft said the state government is “not the friend” of the district and mentioned several water cases fought against the state which involved huge costs to area water users to fight. “We spent all that money fighting and when it was all over we were still in the same position,” he said.

Of the two dozen people at the meeting, about half voted in favor of joining the suit and no one voted against it. Shawcroft said in view of the vote, the district would pursue the idea of joining the suit.