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 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Compact Principles - Example: Colorado River <br />. <br /> <br />More than any other, the Colorado River Compact exemplifies Carpenter's <br />negotiating skill in a very complex setting: <br /> <br />a. Prime objective was to avoid litigation. The compact offered far more <br />stability than litigation. <br />b. The Southwestern League of States resolution endorsed the compact <br />approach to set the stage for appointment of the formal compact <br />commission. <br />c. Carpenter's precept for the Colorado River Compact was to allow each <br />state to take a "reasonable portion, whatever it might be under all the <br />facts and circumstanc es, which materially differed on each stream." <br />Needed to find a solution that allowed upper and lower basin states to <br />develop at a pace consistent with geographic and economic realities. <br />Must allow communities to mature gradually without having to <br />compete for water, allowing stable economic expansion and <br />permanence. Goal was to pre - empt a free - for - all race to develop. The <br />shift in discourse from irrigable acreage to equitable apportionment <br />between basins was crucial to success. <br />d. Joint consideration o f all seven states' interests would determine how <br />successful the compact would be. <br />e. If states were going to cooperate, each was going to have to <br />compromise, but none should have to give up the right to future <br />economic development. <br />f. Each state would have to give up some of its sovereignty for <br />cooperation. <br />g. Upper basin states would give up their claims of absolute dominion <br />and control in exchange for some scheme that would consider the <br />principle of continuous uninterrupted flow. <br />h. The upper bas in states agreed to cooperate with the lower basin states <br />for construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam for flood control so long <br />as the upper basin was guaranteed the right to develop at its own pace - <br />compact first, then construction. <br />i. The upper basin sta tes did not want to retard lower basin development, <br />but did not want to be penalized for it. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.