My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8014
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:24:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8014
Author
McDonald, W. J.
Title
The Upper Basins' Political Conundrum
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
A Deal is Not a Deal.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The Upper Basins' Political Conundrum: A Deal is Not a Deal <br />significant number of the federal projects which were authorized for them to <br />have been stymied by a variety of factors, the primary ones being federal <br />budgetary constraints, faltering project economics, new environmental <br />requirements, and shifting political sands. Even when some portion of the <br />contemplated development has occurred, upper basin water interests may <br />find themselves unable to reap what they believe to be a "fair share" of the <br />benefits which are now, or could now be, generated by those projects. <br />In the view of upper basin water resources development interests, the result <br />has been that they have not "gotten their due." They argue that "deals" <br />memorialized in the form of authorizing legislation should be honored by the <br />federal executive and legislative branches of government, or suitable <br />contemporary substitutes provided, because it is "unfair" and "inequitable" for <br />the lower basins to have had the federal government's "promises" to them <br />fulfilled (i.e., federal resources expended to their benefit), while the upper <br />basins have gone wanting or, worse yet, both have gone wanting and have <br />had their states' riverine resources dammed and inundated mostly to the <br />benefit of downstream states. <br />The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the Commission should <br />endeavor to address itself to the issue of federal water project development <br />having not proceeded in accordance with past political agreements. The <br />history of Congressional legislation which ratified interstate compacts and/or <br />authorized federal water resources developments in the Colorado River and <br />Missouri River Basins, and the actual results of federal development in those <br />basins, will be drawn upon for illustrative purposes.2 While other basins <br />could also have been examined, the history of the political agreements <br />reached in these two basins are the primary examples of upper basin lower <br />basin "deals" and serve to fully frame, in the author's opinion, the question to <br />be addressed. <br />z The political, legislative, legal, and institutional history of water resources development <br />in these basins has been, for the most part, well documented and summarized in numerous <br />publications. Thus, no effort has been made in the course of preparing this paper to search for <br />and review original source materials. Rather, the author has relied upon the many thorough <br />and competent works which have already been written. Perusal by the interested reader of <br />the secondary sources referenced in the footnotes in this paper will yield a wealth of citations <br />to original materials, such as government reports and statistics, Congressional committee <br />hearings and reports, histories of Congressional floor debates, minutes of compact <br />negotiations, official agency correspondence, personal papers, and brochures, newsletters, <br />newspaper articles, and other materials written contemporaneously with the events at hand. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.