A Historic River Compact and Modern Water Negotiations: The Struggle Continues
At Colorado State University, two substantial orange-bound volumes rest on a library table, encapsulating the intricate details of past negotiations over the Colorado River. These historical records offer a glimpse into the events surrounding the creation of the 1922 Colorado River Compact, a pivotal moment in the management of Western water resources.
“This is the original compilation,” remarked Patty Rettig, the water resources archivist at the university. She oversees the comprehensive documentation of past interstate discussions over the division of the Colorado River’s resources.
The pages within these volumes hold the transcripts from 27 meetings that culminated in the Colorado River Compact in 1922. The verbatim minutes reveal the presence of key figures, such as commissioners from the seven Colorado River states and the federally-appointed chairman Herbert Hoover. Through these documents, one can trace the path from disagreement to eventual compromise.
As Rettig noted, “In the end, they get to some word-smithing. Thankfully, we do have detailed meeting minutes. We can see what concepts they were discussing.”
Fast forward to the present, and the seven states are once again embroiled in negotiations over water distribution. With existing agreements set to expire soon, the need for a new plan has spurred discussions and debates. However, unlike the transparency of the past, current negotiations are shrouded in secrecy, with limited public insight into the proceedings.
John Berggren from Western Resource Advocates highlighted the opaque nature of these meetings, stating, “But there’s no announcement; there’s no meeting agenda. There’s no minutes that are read out from those meetings. The only way you even know they’re happening is you have to know someone who’s there.”
The negotiations, crucial for the 40 million people dependent on the river, have faced hurdles. Some states have not been forthcoming with their records, and the few that have provided information indicate intense negotiations leading up to critical deadlines.
Despite the secretive proceedings, some argue that these closed-door negotiations are necessary. John Fleck, a researcher at the University of New Mexico, acknowledged the need for private discussions but expressed concern over the lack of transparency.
“These people have lost my trust,” Fleck stated. “I no longer trust that behind those closed doors they are doing the kind of difficult discussions that need to happen.”
The closed nature of the talks has also raised concerns about the exclusion of important stakeholders, such as the 30 tribes reliant on the river. Amelia Flores, chairwoman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, emphasized the need for greater inclusion, warning that the current process threatens tribal sovereignty.
State negotiators, however, insist they represent a diverse range of constituencies and face challenges in conveying the complexities of the negotiations to the public. Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s river negotiator, explained the difficulty of sharing every detail, stating, “It’s not just one issue. It’s how we move forward things as a package.”
Amidst these challenges, some experts call for a balance between confidentiality and public transparency to manage the shrinking river effectively. As Jim Lochhead, a former negotiator, noted, finding this balance is crucial for future negotiations.
Scott Franz contributed reporting.
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River produced by KUNC in Colorado. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
—
Read More Arizona News
