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 time and for all time in the future. There were a
number of interesting quotes out of the reports of
Mr. Emerson - as he reported back to a number of
governors and to our Legislature through the
ratification process - that emphasize that longer-term
vision, the comity of working together and the desire
to avoid litigation.
Certainly as we look to that record we believe
a deal is a deal. We think the Compact and the
broad principles of the apportionment [have] served
us well, have put in place the protections that we felt
were important at the time. While we have grown
slowly, we are still continuing to grow, although
probably at the lowest rate of any of the states here.
Our agriculture has been stabilized, but our munici-
pal, and more importantly, our industrial growth is
the real driver for this particular portion of our
allocation. The environmental issues which are
greatly changed in our state in the last 10 to 20 years
have been accommodated under state law, but within
the framework of the apportionment set out by the
Compact.
The concept of beneficial uses that were put into
the Compact were important to Wyoming. There
were a number of references of that being the
principle upon which our own state laws were based,
and that that principle should be carried on.
Our state laws have [changed] dramatically over
the 75 years to address the ever-changing needs of the
citizens. But we've never had to go outside the
envelope that the Compact provided as far as the
basic allocation principles. It has been the foundation
- it set the boundaries, and we believe that those
boundaries still exist and can accommodate the
changes that we currently face today.
The efforts 75 years ago to promote interstate
cooperation are as true today as they were in the past.
The solution in some of the research that I discovered
from Mr. Emerson was that the solution should be a
solution where everybody becomes a have, not a
have-not. That was the basic accommodation that
was to be reached, and to recognize the differences
and to preserve those differences was often part of the
phraseology that he used as he reported back to the
citizens in the state of Wyoming.
It's hard to second-guess. Emerson's view, of
course, was to produce a document. There was some
interesting language where he said that the commis-
sioners worked hard to be concise without sacrifice of
clarity. He indicated in some of his statements that
one of the virtues of the Compact was that it did not
attempt to do too much. That, of course, created
careers for lawyers and engineers for all eternity. But
that was the goal, or that was the vision that he had at
the time. Don't nail down everything. Set out the

broad principles that gentlemen and states can agree
to, and let the details follow.
Indeed, there's some discussion in some of the
research that indicated technical and legal phraseol-
ogy should be completely avoided to the extent
possible. That was one of rhe goals as he looked back
to the negotiating process.
The courts, of course, will continue to be involved
in interpreting the Compact as well as their own
decrees. When we look back 75 years, sure, it looks
like they could have used a little better data. Being
the engineer, that's always the desire. We still don't
have enough data. I'm involved with a number of
circumstances where now we have 100 years of record
instead of 15, and we are still unsure as to whether or
not the accommo-
dations that we're
reaching in the
1990s are as
satisfying or will be
as long-lasting as
they were in the
Colorado.
Could it be
clearer? I suspect
it could, although
there will always
be unforeseen
issues, certainly
unexpected
circumstances. There will always be changing public
values, but the similar objectives, the broad interests
that were discussed 75 years ago, in my view, still
exist today. The new issues, we believe, really can be
and have been accommodated within the framework
that was set out so long ago. But the issues of the
tribes, of the Endangered Species Act, of salinity
control and the myriad of other matters that we all
face today are the challenges to fit within that
framework.
I suspect the agreements that we all strike indi-
vidually within our states fur our clients, for our
own interests, probably won't seem so clear 75 years
from now either, although we're taking much longer
time, much greater pain to look over the words. I've
been through processes that have taken years to come
up with three pages - what these guys did in 10
months. I don't know if that's any better, and whether
or not it will be any longer-lasting than the Compact
has been.
The court decrees are no different. We're having a
little more experience than we need right now with
our flatlanding neighbors to the east, who are not in
this river basin, suing us over unanticipated issues
that resulted out of 12 years of prior litigation.

The courts, of course,

will continue to be

STATES'
PERSPECTIVES

involved in interpreting

the Compact as well as

their own decrees.

- Jeff Fassett

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGSIMAY 1997

o