9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATES' PERSPECTIVES Certainly the negotiators left a number of unanswered interpretive questions - the Mexican treaty obligation, how the tributaries play. The negotiators clearly didn't see increasing urban demands, environmental demands on the river, although again I think the fundamental basis was to create a right of development that would allow economic conditions to take their normal course. And I think that was largely achieved. In summary, from Colorado's viewpoint, Delph Carpenter did accomplish all of the principles that he wanted to accomplish. The fundamental deal that was struck between Upper and Lower Basins was that the Upper Basin would have a perpetual right to develop an allocated share in perpetuity, and in exchange for that, the Upper Basin agreed that we would let whatever water we didn't need go down to the Lower Basin without charge. And that has served as a foil for proposals such as inter-basin water marketing in the basin. It has taken water outside of status as an article of interstate commerce on the Colorado River and has provided a comprehen- sive regulatory scheme on the river. I think that the Compact will continue to serve as a basis for negotiation between the states on the issues that we face in the future. Mike Ely used to say, in a very pragmatic way with a twinkle in his eye, "When you marry the U.S. Treasury, you get the federal government for a mother-in-law." SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 ~ - Jerry Muys Muys: I just have a comment on one of the themes of your presentations, and then a question for you and the audience on the kind of federal phobia that seemed to possess Delph Carpenter, and I think is still alive and well in the Colorado River basin. Mike Ely was as much an ardent "states' righter" as anyone I ever met - very conservative - but he used to say, in a very pragmatic way with a twinkle in his eye, "When you marry the U.S. Treasury, you get the federal government for a mother-in-law." So we recognize the reality of water resource development in the West. Second, on the federal government's role in the West, I was surprised to learn that when the League of the Southwest passed those resolutions recom- mending initiation of compact discussions, it recommended a compact between the states and the United States. What resulted was a Compact among the states, and we didn't get around to having the federal government as a compact partner in water resource matters until the '60s when the Delaware River Basin and Susquehanna River Basin compacts included the federal government as an equal voting partner subject to majority rule. It took a long time for the reality of the need to lock the federal govern- ment into your compact structure to be realized, but I think that's still a viable and desirable alternative - something the National Water Commission recom- mended in its 197:3 report. On the federal-state issue, I think it's kind of ironic that the most ardent states' righter state in the basin, Arizona, in the Compact negotiations and Boulder Canyon Project negotiations, ended up in Arizona v. Califi'rnia, through the skillful lawyer- ing of Mark Wilmer, persuading the special master and the Supreme Court to write state law out of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The win was a great victory for Arizona - to get the full 2.8 million acre- feet they wanted out of the main stream and not out of the allocation that had been made to the entire Basin. This is what lawyers have to do. I remember Mike Ely, again with a twinkle in his eye, one time said, "Sometimes, Jerry, you just have to rise above principle." That's not what you're taught in law school, but that's what happens. The question - Dave Kennedy touched on and we talked about a little - [is] whether the goals - I'd say particularly of the Upper Basin states - were warped or thwarted or modified in some way by the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. California, essentially reading the Compact language out of the Boulder Canyon Project Act with respect to the Basin allocations and the Upper Basin's treaty obligation. But it read references to waters apportioned by the Compact out of the Limitation Act and out of Section IV(a) of the project act with the result that you have the secretary in the situation where he is able to allocate at least 7-1/2 million acre-feet out of the main stream without any chargeability for uses by Arizona or Nevada or other small pieces of the Lower Basin against those allocations, so that you've really got uses now in the Lower Basin in the neighborhood of, I guess, 11 million acre-feet or more, perhaps, if you take the main stream and the tributaries. And I'm wondering whether that is the result that the Upper Basin thought would eventuate from the limitations they put on the Lower Basin in the Compact. Do you think that hurts or distorts the goals that the Upper Basin had? LOCHHEAD: I don't think it hurt the Upper Basin at all because Arizona v. California didn't interpret the