My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1 Memorandum - RG - Interbasin Compacts
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
1 Memorandum - RG - Interbasin Compacts
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:35 PM
Creation date
7/26/2007 2:20:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Negotiations: Development of an Institutional Framework - Introduction
Date
12/17/2004
Author
Russell George, Frank McNulty, Peter Nichols, Eric Hecox
IBCC - Doc Type
Program Planning, Budget & Contracts
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />The Process <br />: <br /> <br /> Carpenter focused as much on the method of negotiation as on the goals. And it <br />i s clear that the process was essential to the success of the compact negotiations. This <br />interstate process appears equally applicable to negotiations between basins within the <br />state. <br /> <br />Pre - compact Climate <br /> : <br /> <br /> The political and legal climate set the stage for successful compact negotiation. <br />Many of the same factors exist today and may set the stage for negotiating interbasin <br />compacts: <br /> <br />a. It was a time of rivalistic state mercantilism - states attempting to gain <br />commercial advantage - while at the same tim e desiring to have federal <br />water projects involving several states. <br />b. Most downstream states expected litigation as the method of achieving <br />their goals. <br />c. Negotiated compacts were seen as working better than litigation in part <br />because of the efficien cy of devising compacts. <br />d. Carpenter believed that if litigation were the tool of choice, ultimately <br />the United States Supreme Court would recognize the principle of <br />prior appropriation and apply it across state lines. <br />e. I t was understood that a plan of equitable apportionment needed to be <br />formed before the federal government imposed a de facto allocation <br />through construction and operation of federal reclamation projects. <br />f. Carpenter used the precedent of then existing international law as a <br />model for the interstate discussions. In arid lands, it was <br /> believed that the use of conservation and development of river water <br />should be viewed as a "public trust" with due regard to the eventual <br />rights of future inhabitants of the region. <br /> <br />Leadership: <br /> <br />A review of successful compact negotiations underscores the critical role <br />played by the formal leader/leaders of the groups: <br /> <br />a. Requires leadership to expand traditional though processes beyond <br />parochial squabbles and demands. <br />b. Consensus building was required to accomplish the ultimate goal of <br />agreement. <br />c. Patience was needed: "Lasting compacts take time, time and above all, <br />time." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.