|
<br />
<br />STATES'
<br />PERSPECTIVES
<br />
<br />that may be remembered and followed when
<br />smaller streams and lesser controversies are under
<br />consideration."
<br />I think those statements give an adequate view of
<br />Utah's mind set at the time of the negotiations; that it
<br />was a tremendous opportunity, that the document
<br />had to be a relatively simple one to get everybody's
<br />approval, but that it could be very, very powerful.
<br />In light of subsequent events, hindsight is always
<br />wonderful. There are many myriad details I'm sure
<br />we would all change.
<br />But the basic concept of the Compact and the
<br />Law of the River that has evolved around it have been
<br />time-tested and proven worthy of the faith that was
<br />placed in those negotiators. Utah believes that the
<br />Compact is very flexible, that it is not hidebound,
<br />that it can meet the new problems as we've seen
<br />changes over the last 25 or 30 years. The salinity
<br />control program, water quality, which was never
<br />addressed originally in the Compact, have been
<br />added to the Law of the River, and have been
<br />important. We believe that these things can happen
<br />and that we accomplished what we set out to in the
<br />original negotiations, and that it still provides a good
<br />basis for the future of the water users in the Colorado
<br />River Basin.
<br />
<br />GORDON "JEFF" FASSETT,
<br />
<br />STATE ENGINEER, WYOMING
<br />
<br />As I reviewed the similar histories that the rest of
<br />my colleagues have, I often caught myself wondering
<br />about the phrase "the more things change, the more
<br />they seem the same." It is
<br />
<br />Our focus was amazing to me that these
<br />indeed are time-tested
<br />
<br />develop water.
<br />
<br />
<br />really to protect the
<br />future ability to
<br />
<br />SYMPOSIUM
<br />PROCEEDINGS
<br />MAY 1997
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />concepts.
<br />While clearly the
<br />allocation issues and the
<br />management that we all
<br />face today is much more
<br />complex than it was 75
<br />years ago, I find myself
<br />thinking that the basic
<br />needs, the interests, sometimes the basin personali-
<br />ties, and the politics are really somewhat the same.
<br />The frustrations, the collective needs, the need for
<br />common, long-term vision is as much in existence
<br />today, or certainly is as needed today as it was back
<br />then. There's nothing like bringing the states together
<br />than to have our friends from the federal government
<br />act as the catalyst. And that certainly is as common
<br />today as it was then.
<br />My research went to my predecessor, the state
<br />engineer, Frank Emerson, who was our participant in
<br />
<br />- Jeff Fassett
<br />
<br />the Compact. He later went on to become governor.
<br />(It seems that there was a trend of stepping stones of
<br />state engineers to governors that seems to have shifted
<br />now to attorney generals to governors. But neverthe-
<br />less, there was a pattern at that time.)
<br />I've also got some quotes. The key thing to
<br />Wyoming, as I read the materials that Mr. Emerson
<br />left in the archives of my office, [is that it] was ready
<br />at the time to really seize the opportunity, as many
<br />others have addressed. Our focus was really to protect
<br />the future ability to develop water. The records in our
<br />archives suggest that we weren't as concerned about
<br />threats to the development at that time. Indeed,
<br />Wyoming had established priority rights going back
<br />into the 1860s. We had adopted the principles of
<br />prior appropriation under both territorial and
<br />constitutional bases, and our vision was the long-
<br />term. Our concern was the long-term safety and the
<br />ability to develop water, knowing full well that we
<br />were going to lag greatly. If anything has proven true,
<br />that is true for Wyoming. We to this day still lag in
<br />development, but put great reliance on the Compact
<br />and the language and the footprints that our prede-
<br />cessors left behind.
<br />If we hang on to any word in what was empha-
<br />sized by Mr. Emerson, it was the term "in perpetu-
<br />ity." Those are words we still to this day hang over
<br />our door in the upstream states.
<br />He recognized, and I think Wyoming recognized
<br />at the time, there was a great need for development in
<br />the Lower Basin, and to seek out the interstate
<br />comity that was going to be required to, in a success-
<br />ful and upstanding way, really address the water, the
<br />power and the flood control needs that were clearly
<br />recognized at the time.
<br />As mentioned earlier, we had been involved with
<br />the lengthy litigation on the Laramie [River]. Frank
<br />Emerson wrote passionately about how we needed to
<br />avoid those types of collisions again to avoid litiga-
<br />tion, to avoid lengthy litigation, costly litigation, and
<br />that to receive timely answers and more predictable
<br />futures. He was an advocate of the compacting
<br />approach as well.
<br />We knew that there were vast differences in the
<br />economic foundations between the basins. We
<br />certainly were a great supporter of Mr. Carpenter and
<br />others that recognized that economics were going to
<br />drive development and that our development would
<br />clearly lag [behind] that of the downstream areas.
<br />Needing a framework to protect that future was truly
<br />the driving force at the time.
<br />The framework really allowed for the differences
<br />to be left in comity, to allow those different economic
<br />forces in the basins to really exist; that they could
<br />exist together and not compete against each other at
<br />
|