Presenter: Robert W. Adler, James I. Farr Chair in Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law
9 slide

Adler, Robert W.

English

Colorado Law

University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Navigating the Future of the Colorado River (Martz Summer Conference, June 8-10) 2011 6-10-2011 SLIDES: Who Should Be at the Table, and What Should They Be Talking About? Robert W. Adler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/navigating-the-future-of-the-colorado-river  Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Climate Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Hydrology Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, International Law Commons, Natural Resource Economics Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Public Policy Commons, Risk Analysis Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Urban Studies and Planning Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Adler, Robert W., "SLIDES: Who Should Be at the Table, and What Should They Be Talking About?" (2011). Navigating the Future of the Colorado River (Martz Summer Conference, June 8-10). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/navigating-the-future-of-the-colorado-river/2 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Who Should be at the Table and  What Should They Be Talking About?  Robert W. Adler James I. Farr Chair and Professor University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law  Photo credit Salt Lake Tribune Who is at the table?   Main players with full seats:  Federal Government (DOI) (federal law, Ariz v. Cal)  7 Basin States (Compact)  Water and power users (through the states and BOR)   Sitting closer to the table:   Mexico (via treaty)   Tribes (via federal reserved rights)   Sitting around the back of the room:  Environmental groups and other NGOs (any leverage through federal statutes and public opinion)   What is there to talk about?  Will there be enough water for the Delta?   Will the Tribes get (and be able to use) their fair share?   Can we restore the river and meet Compact obligations?  Can the basin states continue to avoid litigation through flexible Compact implementation?   How to deal with the massive uncertainties due to climate disruption?  Participation in Colorado River decisions Process Who’s “in”? Who’s “out”? Compact  States, Interior Tribes, Mexico, NGOs Upper River Recovery Program States, Interior, water & power users, NGOs Nongovernmental roles advisory  GCDAMP States, Tribes, Interior, water & power users, NGOs Nongovernmental roles advisory  LCRMSCP States, Tribes, Interior, water &  power users, some NGOs Mexico, Some NGOs (by choice)  Salinity Control Program States, Interior, Water Users, Mexico (via IWBC) NGOs  Note: Analysis does not include regular participation in NEPA or notice and comment rulemaking processes.  What does “participation” mean? Source: Bureau of Reclamation Criterion Result Comments Efficiency No  Takes longer to make decisions Effectiveness  Maybe “Good” result depends on goals; better to agree on goals? Public Acceptance Yes External challenge less likely; more efficient in long run? Value of more participants Program Whole Watershed Single Decision Body NGO Participation Tribal or International Participation Great Lakes Yes No Advisory Yes Everglades Yes Yes No No Chesapeake Bay Yes Yes Advisory N/A SF Bay-Delta Yes Yes (Advisory) Advisory Advisory Other large watershed programs Some potential lessons  Whole watershed focus (Getches 1997)  Nest existing efforts within watershed process  Single decision forum for entire basin   At minimum provide advisory status for all stakeholders in all aspects of Colorado River decision making   No participation and even advisory status leads to litigation – common interest in avoiding   

SLIDES: Who Should Be at the Table, and What Should They Be Talking About?

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=navigating-the-future-of-the-colorado-river

SLIDES: Who Should Be at the Table, and What Should They Be Talking About?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Colorado Law