My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04958
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04958
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:16:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:46:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
8/1/1997
Author
Daniel Tyler
Title
Delpheus Emory Carpenter and the Colorado River Compact of 1922
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />experience, he believed that hearings were necessary to avoid the potential for <br />well orchestrated criticism when compacts were presented to state legislatures <br />for ratification. In reality, he argued, a compact was at best an offer to the <br />legislatures of interested states.25 Legislatures ratified what interstate <br />commissions proposed. If parties signing a compact felt that they had been <br />treated with equal dignity, not coercion, if they were convinced that no state <br />gained an advantage in the negotiations, and if the public had sufficient <br />opportunity to make suggestions during the negotiations, the legislature could <br />proceed with assurance that the commission had done its job. <br />For Carpenter the compact process was similar to the protocols <br />associated with drawing up an international treaty. The same caution and <br />deliberation were required. Commissioners also needed to remember that <br />without proper leadership from the states, federal bureaucrats could easily <br />take over the negotiations.26 If an effective compact were to result, however, it <br />would still have to be satisfactory to the various federal agencies. All treaty <br />obligations of the United States needed to be respected as well as the superior <br />jurisdiction of Congress over navigation if, in fact, navigable rivers were <br />involved. The final document should be capable of understanding by lay <br />people. "It should be definite, certain and manifestly just in all its provisions <br />and so appealing in its simplicity as to meet the understanding and to receive <br />the approval of fair minded critics. "27 As such, a compact would become the <br />law of the river. <br /> <br />Carpenter and the Colorado River Compact The Washington Meetings: <br />When Carpenter represented Colorado Governor Oliver Shoup on the <br />Resolutions Committee at the League of the Southwest's 1920 meeting in <br />Denver, he carried a request from the governor to "formulate some method by <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.