WSP04958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 surrounding lands and future reclamation possibilities. 19 Once this information was available, commissioners could meet under certain guidelines: (1) their verbal agreements should be tentative and not finalized until the entire compact was readied for acceptance; (2) suggestions made by each and every participant should be carefully considered and should be taken under advisement for deliberation at subsequent meetings so as to avoid polarization and conflict; (3) each part of the compact should be evaluated in terms of the whole compact; (4) negotiation should not take place under the pressure of time constraints and participants should feel free to deliberate extensively in order to convert complex concepts into simple language; (5) the focus of discussion should be on major points, such as water allocation and construction of works, leaving details to those in charge of the compact's final phrasing.20 Carpenter's extensive studies and his experience on many compact commissions led him to reiterate frequently that compacts were agreements between states, not between individual appropriators. Already vested individual water rights might be subject to modification by the authority of the state signing such a document,21 He urged commissioners to draw up compacts which would be self-executing so as to prevent the need for an enforcement authority.22 To succeed in this goal, he recommended that their discussion gtoups remain small and intimate. Commissioners should not allow "speechfests" and they should meet in executive session to avoid the dangers of misinformation and hyperbole appearing in poorly researched press accounts.23 In 1929 when Carpenter was working on a compact for the four upper basin states, he urged commissioners to take time for public hearings before meeting to discuss specific issues.24 As with the 1922 Colorado River