9298 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REFLECTIONS OFAN ADVENTURER ANDA VISIONARY SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS SEPTEMBER 1999 o the U.S. Geological Survey, its important function would be stymied. In the end, I retired to save the Survey, although this troubled me because I knew what would happen, that the West would be thrown open and the great barbecue would continue. And, of course, that's precisely what did happen. When I went to my last public conference on water in 1893, the Los Angeles International Irriga- tion Conference, I gave my last public speech on this subject. I was virtually booed off the stage. I said this, that 40 percent of the United States is too dry for wetland agriculture. Forty percent, almost half. Of that half, of that 40 percent, if we diverted every available water course with a maximum of human efficiency, we might be able to irrigate 3 percent of the West. In some local places, perhaps, up to 12 percent. But on the whole, no more than 3 percent would ever be reclaimed. I said, and at this point I was virtually being booed at this conference because the boosters wanted to be told nothing but what was optimistic, "It matters not, gentlemen, whether I am popular or not. I am telling you this, you are heaping up a legacy of conflict and litigation in the American West. There is not even a fraction of the water that you expect to prosecute these great irrigation and diversion projects that you contemplate." And then I left public life. I spent the last decade of my life writing essays about literature and symphony and the stage theory of culture and Indian classification of languages and so on. This would be my point that I wish to make to you before I take a few questions. Once you people a landscape, it's almost impossible to reform it and so you want to plan for it before this moment comes. We had it in our power after the Civil War to make for a rational and intelligent and sensible develop- ment of the American West and we ducked it. We failed to do it. We failed to do it because we were impatient. We failed to do it because there is an anti- scientific bias in our society. And we failed to do it because the boosters, led by demagogues like Sen. William Stewart, refused to hold up development even for a few years. They preferred profit to intelli- gence, they preferred booster ism to rational science. And so they did heap up a legacy of conflict and litigation in the American West. That's a great pity indeed. QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE: I like the idea of the watershed commonwealths. Watersheds can be of various sizes from the Missouri River to very tiny rivulets on individual properties. Would you elaborate a bit on the size that you would prefer? POWELL: I've already suggested what size should these watershed commonwealths be. Ideally, they would be the whole river, so the whole Yellowstone. How long is the Yellowstone? Eight or 900 miles altogether or actually a little less, 600 miles alto- gether. That would be a watershed commonwealth. Now, if you feel that that's too large - and one of the issues of American history has been how large a republic can be - you might divide it into an upper and lower basin. But the point I wish to make is that if you do divide it, you must have an overarching authority. If there's no overarching authority, then you defeat the purpose by dividing a watershed. For example, the Colorado seems to me to be an immensely large river for one commonwealth, but you could have two or three commonwealths with an authority above all of them, and then I would have subdivisions for all of the major tributaries, the San Juan and the White and the Yampa and so on. I was never allowed to flush this out fully with specific plans for specific jurisdic- tions and it wouldn't have been my purpose to do so anyway. But here's the point that I wish to make, that if you don't do this, if you have Utah and Arizona and California and Wyoming thinking about the same river, the Colorado, you are asking for super human levels of forbearance and enlightenment if you think you're going to avoid fundamental disagreements. Now if there were a Colorado watershed common- wealth to go along with your Colorado Compact, think of how much chaos could have been avoided in the course of this period. I would say further, one of my principles of watershed commonwealths is that no commonwealth ever has the right to raid the resources of another. All the water within the commonwealth belongs to that commonwealth. Let's say the Little Missouri com- monwealth wishes to sell water to the Powder commonwealth. That is something we could discuss. I think it's a bad idea but it should come from me to offer my water to another commonwealth rather than for that other one to come and raid it because it has more money and more political power. . QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE: I certainly agree that you had some very forward looking views in terms of managing the development of the West and I understand exactly why you were so attacked and left without support. My question is, were there people in the Congress or in the West or anywhere that actually supported your ideas?