BOARD01417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tit e e faster.' These fears led Colorado to propose an interstate compact that would result in critical Upper Basin political support for the needed construction of storage in the Lower Basin, while protecting the Upper Basin from the faster development in the Lower Basin.' The motivations of the Upper Basin in proposing and negotiating the compact were clear, and it is worthwhile discussing them in some detail, since those motivations underlie the policy positions of many of the states today. 1. The Upper Basin sought the assurance of the ability to develop a share of the river in perpetuity, as needs and economic conditions dictate. Delph Carpenter of Colorado, one of the driving forces behind the compact, saw a compact as the domestic equivalent of an international treaty. Carpenter looked at early U.S. Supreme Court cases, and studied the constitutional foundation of the relationships between the states and the federal government.'. In his view, before formation of the Union the states were independent sovereigns, and surrendered only specific powers to the federal government. Under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specific powers not so surrendered were retained. The power to compact was founded upon same principle as the power in the Supreme Court to settle controversies between the states, or between the United States and a state. These powers assume the respective sovereignty of the states and the federal governrnent.1I In Carpenter's view, the states as sovereigns could, with the consent of Congress under the Compact Clause, agree to a perpetual allocation of water. 12 , See., Footnote 26. 9 Hundley, Pages 106-109. ,. Cases he reviewed included McCulloch v. Marvland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Oeden, 9 Wheat. 1; Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700; and Collector v. Dav, 1 I Wallace 113. 11 Carpenter stated: "In other words, the States of the Union, by consent of Congress, have the same power to enter into compacts with each other as do independent nations, upon all matters not delegated to the Federal Government." Historical Memorandum In Re Colorado River, and Brief of Law of Interstate Compacls, June 4, 1921 at hearing on H.R. 6821, Judiciary Committee, Colorado House of Representatives (referred to herein as the "Historical Memorandum"); Report of Delph E. Carpenter, Commissioner for Colorado, In Re Colorado River Compact, December 15, 1922 (referred to herein as the "Carpenter Report"); Supplemental Report of Delph E. Carpenter, Commissioner for Colorado, Senate Journal January 5, 1923, pp. 75-86 (referred to herein as the "Supplemental Report"). 12 In an address in about I 921 on "The Application of the Reserve Treaty Powers of the States to Interstate Water Controversies)" Carpenter stated: An Elijhu Root could readily comprehend the opportunity of concluding by one convention, the respective permanent positions of the States and of the United States and of determining for all times the equitable apportionment of the waters of this great river, in such a manner as to assure free intrastate exercise of self- preservation and development, without interfering with a similar enjoyment by other states, free from imposition of any foreign control or servitudes except those conceded by the compact. . . [T]he States and the Union are perpetual and the rivers will flow forever. And however ill advised the ambitious policies of persons heretofore in charge of certain Governmental agencies may have been, the present trend of State and National thought would indicate the rapidly approaching termination of improper National interference with State affairs and an awakening of the States to a firm resumption of their sovereign powers to administer their own affairs and to settle their interstate differences by treaties, to the end that this shall