7 Lessons from the Literature

• Title: Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Negotiations: Development of an Institutional Framework - Lessons from the Literature
• Date: 12/17/2004
• Author: Russel George, Frank McNulty, Peter Nichols, Eric Hecox
• IBCC - Doc Type: Program Planning, Budget & Contracts

Revised: 7/26/2007

? Voting is usually based on unanimity or consensus.

? It is within interstate commissions that the true worth of the
compact approach is revealed. Commissions, as permanently
standing bodies, can accumulate information and remain constantly
in negotiation, thus adapting to changing circumstances

Many compacts have supporting technical and administrative staffs.
o

Compacts either: 1) place limitations on the amount of water that can be
o
diverted or stored by upstream states, or 2) divide the actual amount of
water (primarily through a percentage of flow).

Incentives for interstate coordination through an interstate compact are
o
high because the alternative is costly liti gation.
?

The lack of federal participation in interstate compacts limits their usefulness.

Federal laws have given the federal government large, new
o
responsibilities, making it the controlling force in the success or failure of
cooperative efforts

According to many experts, any plan for an interstate agreement should
o
not be considered comprehensive without encompassing federal water
responsibilities (Muys 1994; Sherk 1994; Featherstone 2001; Copas
1997).

Because of this short - fall, federal - interstate compact s have developed.
o
?

A core problem with compact negotiations that needs to be addressed is the
inability to overcome an impasse
?

The following recommendations were made by Clemons (2004) regarding
compacts and compact negotiations

Parties should determine how water would be appropriated under common
o
law principles so the relative strengths of negotiating positions is known.

Parties should agree on interim resolutions to immediate, pressing issues
o
(such as drought) pending establishment of an allocation formula .

Parties should agree on the scientific basis they will use as a standard to
o
establish the allocation.

Compacts should avoid allocation in absolute quantities.
o

Parties should thoroughly and honestly evaluate existing and possible
o
future uses of the resour ce and determine the water needs of those uses
(supply and demand analysis).

The compact should be structured to maximize the chances that an
o
allocation will actually be agreed upon

Federal - Interstate Compacts – Comprehensive Compacts
?

The federal governme nt is a signatory party with the states.
?

The federal government is no longer free to act as it chooses; it must comply with
the terms of the compact.

As laws of both levels of government, the compacts are enforceable and
o
binding on federal agencies as well as on states.
?

There are four primary examples of this approach that can be examined (see
Featherstone 2001; and Copas 1997).
?

Advantages
4