9407

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9407
• Author: Water Education Foundation.
• Title: 75th Anniversary Colorado River Compact Symposium Proceedings.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

THE
S Il VE R
FOX

ers equitably. For him, diplomacy, patience, tact were
the sine qua non of successful negotiations. When
Phil Swing and Hiram Johnson introduced legislation
for immediate construction of a dam at Boulder
Canyon three months before we met in this building,
Carpenter expressed his disappointment. Not at the
bills - but at their lack of courtesy.
This equity to which he aspired could not be
achieved without the collection of accurate data -
complete consideration of all facts and conditions in
each case. It required time. Compact negotiations
were doomed to failure, he believed, if they began
without ample information or if commissioners felt
they were being rushed. Patience would produce
trust. Any desire for speed could cloud or encumber
the real progress to be made.
Similarly, time was needed to allow the states to
ratify the Compact once it was signed. When
Arizona's Legislature
stalled and the other
states wanted to take
her to court to force
ratification of the
Compact, it was
Carpenter, however,
who expressed
tolerance for the
political storm
sweepmg over
Arizona. On
Arizona's behalf, he argued that 10 to 15 years might
be necessary to complete a seven state agreement.
He wasn't off by much.
Time was especially important to Mr. Carpenter
in another sense. He wanted a compact that would
allow the Upper Basin a sufficient interval to match
the more rapid growth in the Lower Basin. He
estimared that it would take from 50 to 200 years
for the upper states to fully develop. It was a theme
he repeated frequently because he did not want a
compact that would require reapportionment of
what was then believed to be surplus water before
the Upper Basin had a chance to fully mature
economically.
As much as he supported California's request for
a dam at Boulder Canyon, he was sure that the
opportunity to develop and prosper would never
come to the Upper Basin if construction were to
begin prior to signing a compact. It was a theme he
repeated over and over again in Santa Fe and at other
interstate stream compact negotiations.
Because of its permanence, a compact would
provide assurance to private developers. Without a
compact, development would proceed ar the behest
of the Reclamation Service and the Federal Power

Compact negotiations
were doomed to failure,

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
MAY 1997

o

he believed, if they
began without ample

information.

Commission, both of which were already planning
projects on the lower Colorado without awaiting an
orderly settlement of rights by the states. If works on
the lower Colorado were built prior to a compact, the
Upper Basin states would face what he called a
"servitude" - an undefined and illegitimate obligation
to deliver water to the Lower Basin because of
priority rights established by use. "Nations went to
war over illegal servitudes," he warned. States in the
United States initiated the equivalent of war in the
Supreme Court. The prime objective of the Colorado
River Commission, therefore, was to settle and
advance those matters which would otherwise be
brought into court.
Mexico - the fact that Mexico was a legitimate
user of Colorado River water complicated matters.
According to what Carpenter perceived as interna-
tionallaw in 1922, the United States had a right to
divert all the water originating within its boundaries
regardless of the priorities or necessities of down-
stream Mexico, period!
The commissioners, however, decided to leave
Mexico's claims completely out of compact negotia-
tions, and agreed unanimously to expunge from the
record any debate on Mexico. At the same time,
Carpenter felt that he could not consistently argue
the doctrine of equitable apportionment for part of
the river without applying the same principles to the
entire basin. In the six months prior to the Santa Fe
gathering, he had studied a treaty between Egypt and
the Sudan, and he had interviewed the United States
representative to the International Commission on
the Nile River, looking for situations that paralleled
the relationship between Mexico and the United
States. What he learned specifically is unclear. But his
emphasis on viewing the Colorado River as a whole,
including the Gila River, and administering the entire
basin with due regard to generations unborn suggests
that he was influenced by these international studies.
One cannot complete these remarks without
commenting on the fanatical bias Carpenter held
toward federal intervention in the domain of states'
rights. Experience on the Rio Grande and North
Platte had led him to believe that the Reclamation
Service was violating its charge - the charge given to
it in the Newlands Act to work under state law and to
protect state sovereignty. "The breach of this pledge
has been the root of great evil," he wrote. "The
unrighteous doctrine of federal usurpation of state
jurisdiction manifested by the government's claim to
ownership of unappropriated Western water was
simply shocking." And it made the Reclamation
Service appear to be childish and despotic.
In addition to defining the respective jurisdictions
of the states and the United States, assuring peace and