9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

understand a little bit more about what the Winters Doctrine means. Article VII, which I mentioned before, is one article that could have used a little bit more definition about what were the rights of the Indian tribes. Another article that has led to considerable discussion is the water to be delivered to Mexico, where it talks about "borne equally by the Upper and Lower Basins." That has generated considerable discussion throughout the years, and I believe it could probably use a little bit more definition. Finally, the Compact talks about beneficial consumptive use; that is something that we continu- ally have discussions about - what specifically does it include? Certainly it has allowed an evolving discus- sion or an evolving definition. JAMES LoCHHEAD, ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES As with my colleagues, I started out trying to prepare some fairly short remarks and look for some selected quotes from Delph Carpenter and others as to what Colorado was looking at in 1922. I holed up in my office in Glenwood Springs and about three days later I emerged with a 23-page paper. The amount of material is overwhelming. Going into these issues and looking back at the history of the development of the Compact is fascinating to me. It was a real pleasure to be able to spend a few days away from my office working on this paper. Jeff's remarks about the Platte River reminded me that we've certainly come a long way in doing simple things. We just finished a three-year negotia- tion on the Platte River and have produced a ISO-page agreement with the Department ofInterior, Wyoming and Colorado, on managing water and land for endangered species habitat. It certainly illustrates the complexity of the issues that we deal with today vs. what they were dealing with in 1922. Maybe it speaks to the wisdom that they had in 1922. When I looked at Colorado's perspective going into the Compact negotiations, I was able to pull out five principles that Delph Carpenter very firmly held going into those negotiations. I came away with the impression that he essentially knew exactly what he wanted to achieve; he had these principles that he held. He stuck to them throughout the negotiation, and I believe he achieved them ultimately in the negotiation of the Compact. First, Carpenter sought the assurance that Colorado and the Upper Basin could in perpetuity develop a specified and defined share of the river. Second, Carpenter sought to avoid the interstate application of the doctrine of prior appropriation. Third, Carpenter was worried about asserted federal authority on the river, and he wanted to maintain state autonomy in regulation of water supply. Fourth, Carpenter, having been involved in Supreme Court interstate litigation, was adamantly fearful of that litigation and wanted to avoid litiga- tion through the Compact mechanism. Finally, Carpenter and others had a vision for comprehensive development of the Colorado River Basin. And they viewed the Compact as the founda- tion upon which that comprehensive development could be achieved. I will go briefly through each of these items, I won't read you all 23 pages of my paper. Mr. Bannister referred to Carpenter's views about state sovereignty, his looking to international law, the treaty powers of nations, and how he viewed states as independent sovereigns with the ability to enter into perpetual agreements on the allocation of natural resources. He viewed the constitutional authorities of the states and their ability to create this perpetual allocation as the foundation of the Compact, and certainly asserted that right through- out the Compact negotiations. In fact, his opening position at the seventh meeting was that the Upper Basin should be able to just develop whatever they needed to develop, free of any claim from the Lower Basin, and that the Lower Basin would benefit from the return flows from that development, and by virtue of their return flow, have whatever water that the Lower Basin needed. That idea was summarily rejected by the other commissioners, but Carpenter nevertheless did stick to the idea of a perpetual allocation, and he hung to that throughout the negotiation. That was one of his primary principles. Clearly that was achieved. Article III(a) allocates the right to con- sumptive use in perpetuity, And it's something that, as I'll talk about later, the Upper Basin states certainly have relied on. STATES' PERSPECTIVES Carpenter sought to make sure that through the Compact, the prior appropriation doctrine would never be applied to the detriment of the Upper Basin states. - James Lochhead SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 o