WSP04759

• File Number: 8200.300.20.F.1
• Description: Grand Canyon Trust
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 2/26/1996
• Author: Grand Canyon Trust
• Title: Proceedings of the Colorado River Workshop 1996
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

The conclusion may be irresistible that the big flaw in
OUf present institutions is that they grew out of an
adversarial process. It is true that our legal system is
staked on making expenditures of time and resources,
of pressing extremes to produce the truth. But in the
end, the legal system also depends on having a judge
or jury reach a decision which the parties must
accept. That has not worked on the Colorado. Are the
planning and management for the diverse and multi-
ple resources of the Colorado River basin best left to
adversaries to fight over? Will we accept the mandate
of a single decision maker? If not, we must find a way
to entice, even coerce cooperation, collaboration,
compromise.

CONCLUSION

The history of the Colorado River is not a happy one.
But history need not repeat itself. How can I reach this
upbeat conclusion?

There has never before been a greater convergence
around finding solutions to the problems of the
Colorado River Basin, to developing the factual basis
for those solutions, and to solving the wide array of
interconnected problems jointly. People are coming
together to address more than an issue at a time. The
agenda of the Colorado River Water Users Association's
meeting are broader than ever before. The seven states-
ten tribes forum brings tribes to a table of sovereigns
for the first time in river history. We certainly are more
in command of the facts - scientific, economic, and
hydrologic information - than ever before. For
instance, the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and
the environmental impact statement provide volumes
of new information. The question is whether it will be
the basis of better decisions or whether it will be
ignored or merely selectively used.

14

Of fourse, our information is not complete, but we
have invented adaptive management and are beginning
to t~e the risk of little uncertainty in exchange for
i
mUfh greater prospects of successful management.
Sig4ificantly, that adaptive management approach
employs an advisory group with multiple interests rep-
resel1ted on it so that scientific experts, recreational
!
andi environmental interests and sovereigns, all will
,
hay! a voice. These are voices - with information and
ideas not heard before.
!
I
i
There are different views about the prospects for
bringing people together to find collaborative solu-
tion~. Ken Maxey sees an advantage in having a dia-
log1e but believes "complete resolution of these issues
is uilikely," holding little hope out for a long-term (or
perIfanent), comprehensive program," Other papers
insidt that we must move toward that kind of a pro-
gram. Dyer argues that the goal of more efficient water
use in the basin depends on collaborative efforts
amopg different water use sectors. Perhaps the most
I
optijuistic of all the authors, Rod Smith discusses
inte~state negotiations. Though he is upbeat, he, too,
musj concede that water marketing - even intrastate
I
- h~s been acrimonious. The few successes are the
result of lengthy negotiations. And the crown jewel -
the Ilnperial Irrigation District - Metropolitan Water
DistJ1ict trade - was just about water. It did not have
to dI' I with endangered species or other environmen-
tal q estious, making it relatively simple in the scheme
of th. ngs. The latest chapter, involving marketing to
Las Yegas some of the water saved by MWD's invest-
ment! in lining lID's All-American Canal, has not yet
been 'completed. The MWD- lID relationship proved
to belas fragile as the relationship between Israel and
Pales\ine. Harsh words were spoken just a few weeks
ago ard the parties are reluctantly returning to the
,
table for facilitated discussions.