9367 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

federal, the state, and the water users involved, please remember that
we are not Bureau proj ects. We do not operate that way and we deserve
different consideration.

Carroll Mul tz: Not only do you deserve different considerations, you
deserve better consideration. The Bush administration feels the
primacy is the state's right to move everything to the states. The
instances in which there would be federal intervention would be a
result of federal funds, interstate storage, transportation, or
anything that would come into exercising interstate commerce. As you
know, and from listening to the Secretary of Interiors comments, which
reflect the policies and thought processes of the Bush administration,
that they want to turn as much over to the states and local
government, and more specifically local governments, rather than have
the federal government involved. You are correct Ruth, and your
comments are good. I agree with them, for whatever that is worth.

Question: We have had two speakers that have told us in one way or
the other that the Compact is something that Colorado really does not
have to worry about, in terms of putting more water to consumptive
use. The first was Jim Lochhead's view that we have the water in
perpetuity, and there is no point in building bathtubs right now, if
we do not have a use for them. Secondly, Lori Potter has made an
argument that the Law of the River, as it is traditionally defined,
may become increasingly obsolete and will have to be redefined to
include environmental laws. My question, to Jim and John, is if we
come back here ten years from now, are we going to mention the Compact
only as a footnote to concerns about developing Colorado water for
consumptive use, and focus the conference entirely on environmental
law? Will the Compact, in fact, have become irrelevant ten years from
now.

James Lochhead: I hope I did not give the impression that we do not
have to worry about the Compact, or that the Compact is irrelevant.
What I was trying to convey is that the Compact, in fact, forms the
foundation of the entire complex of laws that have been developed.
It is the foundation of Colorado's entitlement. It is something that
Colorado is very concerned about and for which Colorado has been
fighting since before 1922. I think my point was that it is an
entitlement that we have a perpetual right for, and we do not have to
rush to premature development to try and accomplish it. That does not
mean that there are not threats to the entitlement today that we need
to be worried and concerned about. I think that we will come back
here ten years from now and the Compact will still be the foundation
of operation under the Law of the River.

John Carlson: Just a comment. If we knew what our national economic
future held I would feel more comfortable responding. I was playing
devils advocate by trying to suggest that as people get hungrier they
do different things than when they are rich, fat and sassy. We are
still thinking of ourselves as rich, fat and sassy, but maybe we are
not that anymore, as a nation, as a people, and as a state. I think
that eventually, legal institutions, social institutions, and popular
political movements will respond to economic conditions. I would say

41