9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATES' PERSPECTIVES The second principle that he sought to achieve was no interstate application of the prior appropria- tion doctrine. Carpenter was clearly a proponent of the prior appropriation doctrine, but on an interstate basis he viewed that as an extreme threat. His view was really guided by two cases: Kansas v. Colorado, in which the court announced the doctrine of equitable apportionment. Later, I think he was surprised and shocked to learn in Wyoming v. Colorado that the court wouldn't follow its prior ruling in Kansas v. Colorado, but instead would apply the prior appro- priation doctrine interstate between two prior appropriation states. I might mention that Ward Bannister disagreed with Carpenter as to the potential effect of Wyoming v. Colorado on the Colorado River. Bannister viewed California as a corollary to Kansas in that the root doctrine of California's water law system is the riparian doctrine. Bannister therefore felt that the court would eventually apply principles of equitable apportionment instead of principles of prior appro- priation interstate. Nevertheless, 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 - that the Upper Basin states would clearly have a perpetual allocation. That was achieved in Article III(e), which limits claims of the Lower Basin to those which are reasonably necessary for their use. Article IV(b) makes clearly was the fourth Avoiding litigation SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 o goal of Carpenter's, and I think it was likewise a goal of each of the states. power consumption - James Lochhead subservient to domestic and irrigation uses. And Article VIII preserves prior perfected rights through the Compact. There's been some discussion on Carpenter's third principle of eliminating the threat of federal encroachment on states' rights. His views evolved over a number of years in a number of different ways. Ward Bannister referred to the embargoes in the Rio Grande Basin and the North Platte Basin. The federal government also asserted in Colorado's state water court in the adjudication proceedings in the Grand Valley Project had in essence a reserved right for reclamation projects in the West. Carpenter and others were very fearful of that. The Reclamation Service at that time viewed the Reclamation Act as vesting the service with the authority to assert a date of appropriation that could usurp any senior or junior state development. Carpenter also saw these assertions of federal claims in the Kansas v. Colorado and the Wyoming v. Colorado cases, where the federal government asserted the right to all unappropriated water in the West. Basically, the federal government asserted that federal rights were the origin of any claims to water in the West, and that anything not then in private hands under appropriation was controlled by the federal government. One of the most interesting documents I read was a piece of testimony that Carpenter gave to Congress - I think it was in 1926 on the Boulder Canyon Project Act - and I can only describe it as a diatribe. He went on and on about the damned federal government and how the federal government was trying to encroach into states' affairs. He alluded to a study that had been done in the Reclamation Service under Davis, that he really felt was a federal plot. He viewed the study as the Reclamation Service positioning itself as the sole expert and repository of knowledge of water development in the West, and that states really couldn't do it. He viewed the service's threat as being to put the states into interstate litigation, create chaos, and out of the chaos, all of the states would look to the federal government for the development that the states wanted. And so he had very strongly held views on federal authority. In the 22nd meeting of the Compact Commission here at Bishop's Lodge, after the negotiators had agreed on the basic elements (they basically had agreed on everything) of the Compact, they were wrapping up a number of issues, one of which was, how should we deal with the issues of federal authority? And Ottamer Hamale, who was the chief counsel for the Reclamation Service, asserted that the Compact was really just an agreement between the states, that it wasn't an agreement between the states and the federal government. The federal government was there in a paternalistic way to oversee things and referee the issues between the states. Hamale asserted that in the Compact there should be a general reservation of all federal rights, whatever they may be. Herbert Hoover asked Hamale, "What might those federal rights be?" Hoover had earlier talked about the treaty rights, the rights with regard to Native Americans, the rights to regulate power development on federal lands, and the rights of the federal government for navigation. So he asked Hamale, "What rights might those be?" And Hamale said, "The federal government asserts the right to all unappropriated water in the West." And I'm sure that Carpenter at rhat point, as well as the others, just