Cadillac Desert; 1; Water: Wyoming Speaks Out

Now it's time for you to speak out about water in the West from Wyoming perspective. We have in the studio at Wyoming Public Television to guests with particular expertise about Wyoming water issues. You can sit back and listen while we discuss other big issues in Cadillac Desert. Relate to us here in Wyoming. Or you can call in and ask your questions and express your opinions. Join us on water at Wyoming Speaks Out. Hello. Name is Jeff O'Hara. I'm a freelance writer and occasional television producer and I live in Lander. I worked a few years back with the Casper Star Tribune covering water issues here in the state. And my editor at that time was an McKinnon one of our guests tonight and McKinnon put in time in Kentucky in Washington D.C. studying coal related issues and earning a law degree before moving here for the first several years he's been studying the history of Wyoming water law and its implications for current water policy. And welcome Jeff facit is also here in the studio. He came west from New Jersey to earn his degree in engineering at the University of Wyoming.

He worked in Colorado for a few years before hiring on with the state of Wyoming where he is now state engineer which means he's in charge of water. The job goes far beyond engineering to include complex questions of law and of course politics. Welcome Jeff. Now we've all known each other for at least 10 years. We've we've kind of been working through these water issues together from different vantage points and we'll be working together tonight to answer any questions that you might have about water in Wyoming when you call in. We'll be taking your comments and questions and then broadcasting them over the air. My advice is that you write them down before you call and try to keep them clear and simple. For our sakes on our part we'll try to be clear and simple as well for you. So while you start calling in questions I'm going to ask my guest to become for the moment critics and talk a little bit about the documentary we've just seen and sort of give us your thumbs up thumbs down. And let's start with you. Well I thought it was wonderful to see the historical footage and also the current

footage and went to places like Las Vegas really looks like so that people here get a sense of where that water is going and what it's doing with it. The one thing that I that I missed from it that was in the book to which I found it was it made your point was that the question involved in the construction of this dance was not just the environmental question raised but the question of the money that was spent because there was it was quite a subsidy that the rates at which the water was sold to irrigation farmers and the way the hydro power generated was used to subsidize the water that went to both cities and farms and made it possible to get people out into that desert and build the kind of places that we saw then which allow us to be living beyond our means which is the real question that book is trying to ask is What do we do about that. Jeff let's hear your thought. I didn't see a thumb go up or down on that. I guess we're just going to it's a comment and then we'll leave it at that for that. I feel the same. I like and I think it was an interesting historical

perspective. I was somewhat surprised quite honestly that it was perhaps as balanced as it was to me there were a few things that probably deserve some clarifying I think we'll try to cover those this evening certainly that the main players the debates between Mr. Damani and Mr. Brower are. Left lots of room for debate and discussion and really lots of room for solutions to do a lot of the issues that this development has brought us. And certainly I'm dealing with those issues today as we all are and we will be in the future. And I think that you saw some extremes on all sides. But the history has really fascinated me somewhat. I have to ask you when you say you weren't exactly expecting it to be as bells as it was. Any particular reason that you read the book that this began with smoke rising. I read it all. To be honest it's a huge book. It is a big book. I've read lots of it. I think at the time when it first came out I think there was a lot of concern that

it would have too much of an environmental sort of bias if you will. And I found really that piece this evening did not to be that way it certainly pointed out a lot of issues again the main players of Mr. Dominey Mr. Brower debating what was going on at the time is of interest but but really we need to look look ahead and I think like I said there's lots of room to look at the solutions. We talked about this a little bit earlier and one of the subjects that came up was Glen Canyon Dam and I think you mentioned that in watching the documentary you saw a fair amount of stress on the loss of a beautiful canyon area and not enough perhaps emphasis on some other issues involving Glencairn maybe we can do that you critique here. Sure. I thought that the film put a little too much emphasis on the only purposes for Glen Canyon Dam was hydro power generation. I mean clearly that was one of the goals.

It provided enormous energy resources for the developing southwest and the hydro power quite honestly is the economic machinery behind the development. It was the the method upon which future development and indeed the federal treasury would be paid back through hydropower revenues but was what was missing was really a key point that was important to Wyoming and the key point to Wyoming was that what Glen Canyon represents is really the physical infrastructure the dams to really effectuate the Colorado River compact that was established many years earlier than the construction of Glen Canyon the dam by itself the capacity that it provides really put in place the protections that Wyoming sought in 1922 and received in 1922 as part of the 19 22 compact negotiations. So from our perspective wasn't just a hydro power project. We weren't really worried about fetuses. Phoenixes of electricity at the

time there was really other issues. I'm going to say one word to the audience first and get back to asking you questions. I just want to emphasize that we want to hear from viewers. We'd like to get some calls in and make sure that your questions are the questions that we're answering. So please take note of the number that's on the screen and call Wyoming Public Television. Your questions will be broadcast on the air and we will see if we have it in us to give you the right answers for them. Jeff mentioned the Colorado compact in discussing Glencairn. And damn I think we have to talk a little bit to inform everybody what exactly a comeback is and I'm not sure which of you would want to answer that question. I'd give it to you. Would you like to try. I might start for many it is just an inch and a half because he knows a lot more about him than I do. But one of the interesting things is when there is a dispute about water in one of the interesting things is when it's just between states there's still a way to resolve it including going to court. But often a better way is a compact which is a deal

between the states that is regarded as not you'd be better at this but I think it's there it's more important than a federal law. It has it's it's it's it's not quite as binding as a treaty but it's better than a federal law. It's in a hierarchy of of what you have to follow. And this is one of those things you don't mess around with. Right. Right. And so that the compact Wyoming has a large number of them being had under state and not the complex or the deals the states makes with each other about how they're going to try to work out the allocation among the states. And with that I said well you know it's much more. Compact comebacks. We have come back it's not just the Colorado compact which is among states that share in Colorado's water but others as well. We do indeed here in Wyoming we have a total of seven Compaq's where as and indicated there was agreement between the states compact is really nothing more than an agreement between states which is

initially sanctioned and ultimately approved by not only the states but the federal Congress as well. And that's what occurred here. Colorado was one of the first. There have been many compacts since that time. I think the 19:22 compact in the Colorado was was key. It came at a time when there was enormous pressure of fantastic growth in California as we even see today. And we're celebrating that compact this year it's seventy fifth anniversary of the Colorado River compact that compact really wasn't between states. While the initial dialogue started off being how the states would divvy up the pie ultimately the 1922 compact didn't do that. It only divvied up the pie between two basins the upper basin the lower basin Wyoming being one of four states in the upper basin and three states in the lower area. California Nevada and Arizona. And that's really all that compact it was a basic division of the water.

And what was probably the most important thing to Wyoming back in 1922 was that that compact put in place language that was approved by Ultimately all the states in Congress that set aside a certain portion of that water for the upper basin in perpetuity. It put in place language that protected our future and the pace at which Wyoming would grow relative to the other states. And that was really what the framers thought it was. It was much later that Wyoming actually got its particular piece of of that upper basin pie. Jeff we have a question now from a viewer which actually relates very much to what you're talking about so let's try our technology here and see if we can bring in a question from Becky. I'm going to probably mispronounce this divorce Zach. A documentary about big projects big state big dollars. Oh I'm sorry for it. My question is Where did that leave us in terms of developing our

own resources and controlling our own debt. Now there's a big question what do we got a few minutes later he. Says only an hour show. Well it is it's an important question of course because we're watching a documentary that's really about huge projects that are all downstream from us. I'm sure from remember if Wyoming was actually mentioned by name here there let's let's see if we can answer and maybe you could start with that. I mean what what do we have what role does Wyoming have when there are these enormous projects feeding big cities like Los Angeles where this little state up at the headwaters of Wyoming is has had an interesting role in water law development policy around the West much more than we would think for our size. The first state engineer of Wyoming was in 1890 whose name was ill with mean he ironically ended up as the Bureau of Reclamation commissioner who helped build the Boulder Dam.

And he was hired by by the bureau because he was quite famous as a critic of the Bureau of Reclamation but his role in Wyoming some 30 years earlier was to establish a law that allowed allocation of water within the state in a peaceful way. There was always the possibility then even more than now of water wars and creeks when the water was low and he set up a system where the water you could claim and use was measured by how how much you used put the beneficial use. Also the administrative system of having judges there would be engineers who knew something about water don't make decisions. I'm going to back you up even further. You know we've we've we've already kind of like desert it's this huge book that tells you how complex and how far back these things go. But let's start with really even a different part of the country. People moved west from the East Coast from the East Coast. We had a completely different system and still do really of managing water right. So let's let's let's actually start with that and then say here's what we here's why we

have a different situation. All right. Most in the East Coast and also in England where a lot of our law has come from. They've got lots of water the grains rates. And so one of the problems actually is how to keep water off your land that somebody else is trying to put on. But typically the rule is that you can use water reasonably if it if it if the stream goes through your land you can reasonably you can use an amount that seems reasonable relative to all the other people who might be on that stream. On the partly because of of the interest in developing wealth in the West the water law really first developed here with the gold miners mostly in California and they didn't necessarily find gold near that stream and they didn't necessarily care what was happening on that stream they wanted that water to take it usually for hydraulic mining to get gold out of someplace over here. So it was important to them to be able to pick up that water and move it where there was any left

when it was a reasonable use was not anything they were interested in. So the prior appropriation system as it's now called grew up with that kind of almost a squatter's rights if I'm here first and I got it for this use and then I can I can put it to this use here. The Army Elwood Mead came from Indiana and was used to a wet place in his first job as a young 22 year old was working in Greeley in Fort Collins and he was quite impressed by the fact that water caused so much difficulty and disputes in cities like Jeff Alsip coming from was a good deal like Jefferson or the king the came. And. He there was a lot of irrigation development happening in Colorado at the time on the front range. And. And lawyers were already beginning to make the massive amount of that money that cover water lawyers are now famous for. He moved on up into Wyoming. He was hired by the legislature and read about it in the newspaper.

So it wasn't it was sort of a not exactly like it is today went on up into Cheyanne. And one of the things he wanted to do was use a kind of trip Wyoming as a blank slate and trying to correct the problems he saw elsewhere. So he had done this prior appropriation idea that you could move water out of the stream and not be limited to reasonable use with the other people on the street. But he tried to above all impose state control on it and state controlled by engineers who knew what they were doing himself being the chief one. And the idea of that though was that the state would have an interest in the future and the idea of flexibility and thinking about the needs of the Society for the future which if you just have a dispute between two guys on the street they aren't necessarily thinking about that. And that idea of what do we need for the future. And that will do some planning and thinking about is central to Wyoming or law and has been part of it ever since part of the system that Jefferson and there's two key elements to innovations if you will one obviously is the prior appropriation system which I guess we were the

guinea pig for. To some degree. Yeah I mean the other states kind of pioneered it and he tried to adjust a little bit but the state controlled expanded state control. All right. Frank would you like to add anything to that. Well just the play off of Ann's comments. First I think the reason for the prior appropriation nature was again one of the driving forces behind the history of the compact at the very same time the Colorado compact is being considered you had ongoing prior to that time the litigation not an agreement but a litigation between Wyoming and Colorado over the Laramie river. It was the first interstate activity on water that went to the United States Supreme Court and indeed in 1922 that court imposed an interstate prior appropriation doctrine that was a very important element in the dialogue because there was then enhanced concern that again the faster growing states those that establish their rights prior to some of the rights in

Wyoming might get all the water. And so the compact really drew new lines while each state recognized prior appropriation doctrine. The compact really drew lines and around those prior appropriations States protecting our long term future getting back to the caller's question I think in round numbers here in Wyoming we've used about half of the water that was allocated to Wyoming under our compact since 1922. Seventy five years later generally the use that we have in that part of our state for our municipal uses near groks Springs and Green River. We irrigate three to four hundred thousand acres of land that generally consumes about half of our title. So we have a future. We have additional water is allocated to us under the Compaq's. Time will tell whether the financial and regulatory systems will allow but that the compact put in place the protections that we could grow slower than California.

We have a couple of other questions that have come in and we're about to broadcast. I want to just before we we do the first one though remind viewers that please look at the numbers that have been showing off and on on the television. Call them with your questions. I was going to say no. No question is too simple for us. There probably are some questions that are too complex for us but give us a try anyway and we'll do our best to answer them. The next question that we're going to broadcast is from Mel Guston Let's go wherever to Wyoming and I got a question for you old water in Wyoming. Yeah. I've got a question for Andy. And how would you stop the growth. Well now I have a fairly firm conviction that the Jeffy's asking is what you need it is and I got the easier question. As an indicator really are our ownership was right from the get go it's our

Constitution that our state constitution which was adopted and when Wyoming became the state set out that it is the waters of the state whether they're underground or on the surface or the property of the state and they are subject to an allocation system. A Wyoming water law permitting system that was established in statute. So really though the ownership issue we believe is pretty clear. It doesn't matter whether the right is on federal land or private land. The waters within the four corners of the state of Wyoming is Wyoming. I think that's a pretty sure answer. And let's get to your question which may be a little harder indeed. How would you stop the growth in the mine. Tell me if I'm repeating this right. How would you stop the growth in southwest Wyoming. I presume this means to you at some point. You. No I don't think that some people want to stop to go to. The farm. And that leads back to a discussion

we were having before this started which I think it was really interesting one which is that that the the initiation of of the growth there which is partly illustrated by the episode last we can do with the way Los Angeles made the decision to start reaching beyond its boundaries to bring in a river that really was not within its kind of natural domain that and the subsidy aspect and I was talking about that has been such an important part of Burack for so long that that has created a machine which has generated the kind of wealth that will for quite a while be able to buy whatever it wants. I think we were all agreeing about this we talk that at this point it seems unstoppable I think about well you know but can't you say to developers Well sorry you can't build unless you know you've got water. They've done that in Arizona. There's a requirement for developers to show I believe this is right that they have a 100 year supply of water for subdivision. They go out and buy out all the ranches within. And know how far it is 200 miles

and and the development certainly hasn't stopped in Phoenix so that makes the first viewers question well if we can't stop that. Are we going to be. Are they going to come get us or are we going to be the Owens Valley that this Los Angeles comes after an even more pressing question and. And now Jeff has a great deal of faith in the Compaq's. And I kind of like to believe in him too although I'm not sure I have all the evidence that he does but there's a lot of concern and a good deal of history the Colorado River suggests that is the vote and votes in Congress based on the population down there that's going to make a difference in what finally happens to the war. But there are some controls on the spigot. And of course water is finite as we all know though with money. You can go a long ways you can bring you can bring icebergs down from some other place if you need to. But there are some limitations on what can be done with Wyoming water in terms of exporting it if for instance Phoenix or some other downstream city decided they wanted some of what we'll call our water. Isn't that correct.

Restaff there's been really ongoing debate about issues of water marketing in the Colorado River drainage as there having in other drainages we face similar issues and other drainages here in Wyoming where the. Growing demands both population based environmental based outside our boundaries are becoming significant issues. I do have a lot of faith in the compact that's Wyoming's at the table in the discussions of those issues. The water market is a very complex issue. Our state laws provided for it. We have an export statute in Wyoming law. Ultimately it will be our state legislature upon a recommendation from the state engineer who would ultimately decide the fate of some interstate deliveries outside of our boundaries. I think what we're really focusing on now is meeting the demands of those downstream communities within the supplies that they have available. And as they begin to press up against the limit so to does their creativity looking for

alternative solutions. And while the water marketing issue I think will remain with us for a long time. It really is not the burning issue of the time that Arizona is not up in Wyoming. They are Arizona Nevada Southern California are pursuing much more creative solutions dealing with with conservation. Things of that nature to really meet their burgeoning demand. But as the caller questioner indicated that the demand is not going away. I think the movie we saw tonight really indicated that steps a long time ago really fueled that fire and that isn't going a while ago. Let's let's get the question up a little bit even if it isn't very hot right now and ask what about this question you must you must hear about it it must be discussed in the forums that you participate in of. Should we be getting value for that big chunk of water that we're not using that 50 percent of our water that we're not using that's heading off downstream. Should we be selling it. Should we be making revenue for the state.

There's lots of you know you hear good arguments on both sides. I think there are those though that are concerned those that would advocate some sort of sale or lease I think are the ones who perhaps are looking for the short term gains militarily. The complexities of accomplishing that sort of market I think are very difficult. There are others that are saying Wyoming is growing slower but we are growing and we we want to keep control over our own destiny whatever that destiny is. I think one of the key sort of physical things that often bothers me and our listeners and and many others get confused over is the water that we're currently not using isn't flowing to Las Vegas today it's not going to Southern California. It is being regulated by the series of dams that we learned about in this evening show Glenn canyon being the key facility in the river that dam captures. It really regulates the high years of the drought years and levels out the river so that the downstream states only receive what they're entitled to receive no more no

less. There we'll make sure of no less. Our job is to make sure the federal government gives them no more than what they're entitled to and so our surpluses for the most part are in essence going into a bank account that protects us against a long term drought where the downstream demands could indeed reach up to while we are really insulated water users in Wyoming are insulated from that. As a result of the construction of these significant federal dam could they ask the question. Yes. I mean isn't it also though that because the compact was Catarina on the basis of the wrong numbers that our surpluses are in a way going to give them more than it needed to to help make up that difference and so that is giving them something that at some point they might rely on and say you can't take that away. Yeah the Compaq's gets pretty firm numbers that it wall that while they're on it. Yeah. The hydrology was wrong. That number is a fixed number. Right. Seventy five

million acre foot every ten years. So the fact that less water is in this river basin than those negotiators thought has placed more of that risk upon the upper basin. We we are dividing up less than the compact fathers thought we were getting anticipating or getting. But the 75 million is a fixed number in an infrastructure for Texas. That we have we have a question from one of our viewers about those surpluses this is I'm going to Masquer this name good chitin or cheap cheap and then I apologize. I don't even know if it's news or Mr. chiefdom for not pronouncing your name right which I am sure I do. In fact I probably mispronounced it so much that we co-founders Richard from from Casper Wyoming. Hi Jeff. And my question is are these bathroom very large expensive project developed essentially by the federal government and some people have argued that we have

part of a large system that created a dependency on the West on the federal government and dependency upon margins. You care to comment on that. I'm going to let you come in after you once again apologize to those poor Mr. Cheetham whose question will come up next. Go ahead. I think there's no question that's true although interestingly enough I think the figure is that of all that you're good acreage in the in the West the fear of escalation is 40 percent and it's less than you would think from watching it. But certainly the the the big wealth which is again based on only the federal government doing that but providing it at such low cost that people will never face the real cost them of the means. And also there were all kinds of aspects to it that it was originally intended as a social program to establish small farms big growers in California are all a lot of them getting federally subsidized water and they are not small farmers on 160 acres and don't miss the third part of this documentary.

It's what it's about. That's right go ahead. So I think there's just about you know no question that that has happened. Jeff if you like to come and try as much to add. I think that's indeed in fact in the lower division again in the states and California Arizona and Nevada certainly they don't really do anything on the Colorado River without getting authority permission agreements with the federal government. They are inextricably linked to the federal government sort of for all time based on the on the Compaq's and this series of laws and court cases that came after it. We actually have more independence and we like it that way in the upper basin in Wyoming Colorado while we have some federal construction in this part of our state with fontanel dam we certainly enjoy the backwaters for flaming gorge although the dam is in Utah. The water is in Wyoming. We fish on that for the most part in this part of the of our state although we have fairly sizable reclamation projects and other portions of

our state. We don't have big federal irrigation projects. Most of our irrigation of the Colorado River drainage is private development. A lot of it before the compact even and then some sense certainly without federal dollars. So we are less tied them than those lower basin states to the federal bureaucracy when it comes to regulating water. I think it's worth pointing out though in answer to Bruce's question also that the other federal reclamation projects we do have in Wyoming certainly enjoying wonderful subsidies that we don't have the climate and the altitude to to have the extravagant results of orange fields that you get in California and the kind of wealth that results. But the the the people who irrigate out of the North Platte project and in Goshen County are largely in that area and Midvale project right here have subsidies between 75 percent and I guess there's two things I would add to that. One is that in fact those subsidies are dwarfed by some of the California subsidies that we've mentioned earlier. And the argument that they would make is that you hear from a lot of these communities it

is one of those arguments that it's almost a chicken and egg question. Once these projects are in place they do in fact generate community jobs and the kind of economic structure that is quite dependent on them. And so you get into this rather endless debate about well we are subsidizing these forms but at the same time they now have a dependent community around that we essentially build communities in the west this way. Should we therefore pull the plug. Well on a question that was the intention of the law was to move population from the east to the west. And but it's it's at least worth remembering that it's it's not as if that's a net benefit to the country at the same fifty two million is all that grand canyon cost. But that same 52 million could have been spent in the 50s and 60s in New York City and generated probably all kinds of equally good secondary economic benefits and there are taxpayers who make this point quite often because in fact it's their dollars. I want to get back to another question this time from Casper that we lost at one point earlier. Let's see if we can bring that question up now.

I like the fact that we are in the Green River. To you in Wyoming and therefore if it will work the right thing. We have a quaint as I indicated earlier Jeff I think we're currently using about half of our allocation but the waters we're not using Like I said are captured in reregulated they're not flowing directly to the lower base. So we don't believe there is a direct dependency being built upon our surpluses the waters that are redeliver below Glen Canyon Dam through the Grand Canyon to hoover or the waters that those states are entitled to. Among the questions are starting to pile up which is why you see me looking down here trying to put them in order. We appreciate that and in fact in spite of the little pile I'm developing I want to encourage the viewers to take note of the number that we're showing on the screen now and then and please do give us a

call and ask your questions. I think we've all really pretty well demonstrated that we've got two contributors here. I have a lot to say about these things. We have a question now from David Wolfe of Cheyenne. Yeah. I grew up in Wyoming and like most Wyoming I had the opinion that Arizona was drinking all of the Colorado River water in Central Arizona Project was sucking in Colorado dry. But I lived I just moved to Tempe about five years ago I lived there for five years. And I discovered that indeed they take very little water out of the Colorado River Central Arizona Project very little for the state of Arizona. She say get of its water from a river project dam from the Verde River. And that is a misrepresentation that I think the show showed. I think the misperception that we have living on a farm or on it. There are bath water shed in Arizona which do supply 90 percent of feeding.

And that should be something we should correct in our thinking when we think about the growth in areas like feeding it sounded like thumbs down to me. My comment that the caller is partially right there is significant development on the tributaries to the healer river and the salt river as the caller mentioned. I think well over a million and a half to two million acre foot of water is annually developed and consumed on those other tributaries in the Phoenix area. I think the situation with the Central Arizona Project has changed has changed fairly dramatically in just the last five years. I think for a long time that project was was really advertised as being primarily an agricultural project that is now shifting to being primarily a municipal supplier. But what's going on at the moment is really Arizona as the state is now subsidizing the use of the Central Arizona Project in order to stop the serious groundwater withdrawals that have been going on for a long time groundwater levels and the entire Phoenix basin that drak

drop dramatically that indeed was the source of water for both irrigated agriculture and the growing municipalities in Arizona for a long time. The state itself is now subsidizing the cost of the water to the federal government to encourage the use of the Central Arizona Project water surface water from the Colorado River and to have farmers turn off their wells even though it might be cheaper to use groundwater in order to use the surface water renewable supplies from the Colorado. So I think we're beginning to give a shift it really wasn't really highlighted much that video but I think that the future will we'll see this shift continue. I'd like to comment also an interesting aspect of it is that it demonstrates how much a project I think can be built with no recognition that the supposed beneficiaries and we are not going to be able to afford it even at the subsidized rates the farmers and even the cities I believe that we have had trouble affording it and that's why they need the help from the state of Arizona. One thing it illustrates there is one of the reasons why Jeff has been talking about the creativity build

up in the southwest it demonstrates what economists call the elasticity of demand that occurs with water that water planners have not always been aware of and this has been true of utility planners and a lot of people that have not forecast what consumers will do to deal with the price higher than I'm willing to pay for whatever commodity is. But in water this is an interesting demonstration that c.a.p has kind of been sitting there and people have been trying to figure out how to get anybody to use it. Well people have been scrambling finding all kinds of other things there's demonstrations of reuse of sewage water in Tucson and they're getting quite creative when they really face the price. And so if the price were not some size it suggests that that that we might get all of this more and more. We have another caller who's got to come in on Arizona issues and then I think we're going to try to shift upstream a little bit. But let's hear from another. The question I'm asking is far be on the outline of the story has all gone

down way to bewray has been the major instigator of several of these presumed problems and or solutions. But we could get comics errors since I used to live in Arizona as an incredible example of two dams being constructed by Phoenix to stop the internal river in Arizona and the salt and feed Phoenix with no vital signs of growth for farming for the citrus industry. Forgotten and all of the rest of wonderful things that British used to do. Iran isn't even used anymore. For all practical purposes now with the Salt River project the I mean. And now what the Central Arizona Project the Salt River Project is virtually

useless and it's not feeding the agricultural economy. That part of Arizona state that former Phoenix resident was rich Hilti now of Heatly excuse me now with Casper. We've talked a little bit about this already but would any of you like to add more on it. Just briefly again if you only have to fly into Phoenix to know what they're not growing crops are growing people are growing at a vibrant economy and double digit growth. And that's what's happening the agricultural lands are being divided in many areas around Phoenix. I think in the film tonight Senator Goldwater talked about how it was a community of 10000 and now it's 2 million and it's it is adding more population than certainly Wyoming even has on the Colorado River drainage. So you're going to see that conversion in Arizona is no doubt about it. This subdivision is going to take the

agricultural land out. It's going to convert that water over to the municipal needs. That's really I think another term of the next part of the story that he's asking about is the be Rick has been seriously rethinking its mission since the 80s because it basically is not building dams anymore and people don't want to lose their jobs so they have to rethink. And one of the examples is the were they called flushing flows that were done a year ago in the Grand Canyon to try to somehow imitate the Prefect's the wild river had on the banks of that river. There's all kinds and there's of course there's things like endangered species program that just has so much involved with Colorado. So there's a there's a lot of effort to come up with OK now that we've built this stuff and we it has these impacts and we still have these cities that we want to support and they're going to keep growing how do we how do we also support some of the other things that we that we now realize we lost and we'd like to and somewhat ironically we end

up using a engineering system to try to recreate a natural system which reminds me of one of Mark Reiser's comments in the documentary that we think we want wild rivers. But what we really want is a regulated river that gives us certain results. I said I was going to bring us upstream with the next questions. Not just going to be that I'm going to switch watersheds. Do you have a question from Chelsee Council of lander which we will hear now. I believe one of our Wyoming fungibility concerning the plan did in fact Nebraska and other downstream things. There is still little question as we can wrap that up in a few minutes. Very briefly the legal structure of course is different at the plant. We don't have an interstate compact. History has shown us that for a long time we've been unable to come to agreement with the state of Nebraska certainly and in

Colorado over how the North Platte should be allocated. The result was the court litigation back in the 40s which resulted in a division of the waters. Is that court decision that we're litigating today as we speak a case that started 11 years ago in the United States Supreme Court. So we have responsibilities there are limits on Wyoming water supply North Platte River drainage within Wyoming there are limits in Colorado. There's also limitations in Nebraska to a certain extent and the problem was since the states couldn't agree those issues were litigated and the court decided how the waters would be divided. We're now arguing over what the court said and the result was not in agreement with some plain language that could be understood but a more legalistic document which leaves lots of room for interpretation and that's why we're we're back into it again.

One of the exciting things about the plan is that it actually was signed today this afternoon I understand there is there is a three state agreement with Interior Department on how to handle the plan at least as far as endangered species are concerned downstream in Nebraska and one of the things about the Compaq's In contrast of course decreases as Jeff was suggesting it's always nice to have a deal written by the people who are going to live with it and who probably know something about the river as compared to a decision written by a judge who does his best but maybe doesn't know quite as much as a good half of them. But the lawyer is usually involved in negotiations deals but unfortunate they're everywhere. But the litigation is going on in Nebraska and Wyoming are still scheduled for trial a year from this September but the this this agreement on the plan is an attempt to buy all the states Colorado Nebraska and Wyoming to provide

water and money downstream to the birds downstream. A Habitat the central flyway comes to a kind of a narrow waist line right there on the central Platte. And the whooping sandhill cranes are famous for going through there but it's the whooping cranes these turns piping plovers who are endangered there who don't show up in quite the numbers of the sandhills and they're the kind of terrain they like which is kind of marshy and not all that. It's the way the river used to be has been changed into much more channelized river with nice cornfields and woodlands on the side. By all the dams upstream of which Wyoming is host to a number. And the idea has been to figure out some way to to preserve enhance that habitat and maybe support those birds veteran and bring them back off the endangered species list in the States or are are agreeing to attempt to do that. They're contributing water and money that some people say is not nearly enough. But they're also going to keep talking too much and that they're going to become a little mini government which to me is one of the more interesting things about it and they're also

agreeing to bring their state water systems to bear on this problem and saying hey you feds you do your best to get this one of those guys. As you say that might be the real distinction is that the movement from a period when a federal law is being shoved at the states and they're resisting in always and and actually an attempt to compromise and work with those requirements endangered species protection and such. You for whelming it's a real recognition by guys on the ground in the ditches that you know this endangered species act is here to stay and we're going to have to deal with it as our time compresses a little more here. There are other issues coming up and some of the calls that we're getting and so I'm going to move to another area and this is the area of water relationships between the state and the wind the reservation. We have a call from Richard of course Shane or chain from Casper which we'll hear now. I was wondering when the state of Wyoming was going to stop fighting

with your shoulder and Arapahoes there are about two with regret. Let them do what they were going to do with that water. The Supreme Court gave them privacy rights to it. Who wants to tackle it. Jeff and I have dealt with this together for years now. It's at the moment we're not arguing with the show and or or the Arapaho. I think a lot of litigation is behind us. It's been a very difficult sort of situation but I think in the last couple of years we've tried to move beyond clearly where there are significant differences between state law and the Federal Reserve water rights doctrine and the confusion and the clarity that we're faced with with trying to administer a single set of water users in this one river valley both the Indian and non-Indian alike with two systems of law is not an easy task. And what we've tried to do is

really to restructure our relationship between the state the tribal governments to see if we can't work through what ought to happen on the ground and come up with a system that allows that system to go forward. That's one of the more difficult issues I've obviously dealt with in my career working for the state wanting to blend these two systems of law into one suggesting somebody else has got a piece of the pie and a piece of the stick to regulate it. We think we should the tribes their sovereignty believe that they should. And that's for we that's where we collide and what we're doing now is trying to avoid the collision. We've we've had enough time in court. We hope we can work through a real practical system that really works for the stability of the economy of Fremont County. This is not yours versus our situation. All in my opinion we really have to look to stabilize the situation for really all the water

users in the basin. In fact we don't hear much these days about the fighting and there was for a while the very public squabble about who would be in charge and what values they would subscribe to or that is there in fact any sort of an arrangement worked out or in the works not at the moment the way that the dialogue is ongoing at this point. We've had a number of success stories here locally Craig Cooper my water division superintendent deals daily with both state and reserved water right issues between him and the tribal water engineers office trying to solve immediate problems. At the time. And the other thing we've done is quite honestly stay out of the newspapers. That was one of the downfalls at the time is to to communicate directly and not through the media not through the press not through letters not through our lawyers. And to have people on both sides have direct communication to solve problems while we still can solve them. Otherwise you end up losing some control

when you end up in the courtroom. We've won cases the tribes have won some issues but but neither one has the complete upper hand legally. So we we really are have to work together to work this issue out. We have one more question on the same subject. From Louise Springman of Riverton state I'm back. You are a way of creating your name dragged out of that water. Isn't that right. And and again I'm wondering is your view pretty straightforward question. Sure. The Colorado River compacts were silent about tribal rights although the historically the reserve right doctrine was first establish established in 7:41 under the winter's case clearly the 1922 compact and the subsequent negotiations were after that date. Yet there was no explicit definition of those rights

at the time. By today's standards I think the states really feel like it. Each state has the responsibility to address the tribal reserve water rights within their state and that those uses of water like any use of water within the state should come out of that state's allocation so that the reservations in Colorado when those rights are are firmly established and quantified. We would certainly view the position that those quantities water would come out of Colorado's allocation. Likewise here in Wyoming our wind river of course is not in the Colorado drainage system the Missouri River drainage. We've reviewed the issue that the allocations awarded to the Wind River Reservation tribes under the Big Horn River General adjudication would again come out of Wyoming's allocation under our compact with Montana on the Yellowstone. And that's generally how the states viewed that. But the tribes have a different view in many circumstances.

And would you like to come in on that. Well I think one of the interesting ironies of the Compaq's in relation to the stance states have also often taken regarding tribal rights is that the compacts are really a statement by the states typically the upper basin states in the Colorado River case example that they have reserved rights. I mean these are what we expect to use them some time and we want to be protected and we don't have to use them now and we're still going to have. Now what does that sound like. Well it sounds like you're right. The so there's there's a lot of irony there of states who are defending that and saying what is this you're talking about I reserved right which was what was going on in court here about 10 years ago. The of course the Compaq's were written by and for the guys who were in power at the time and they paid no attention to the tribes. And one of the interesting things that Wyoming waterline and cruelty on other states in the West are facing is is how to to recognize other people in the community and that the litigation

that's going on over tribal rights has has recognized rights in the tribes that then give them if they wield it smartly and most of them are the power to say OK now what's going to happen here how are we going to rethink some of this Waart law to try to treat us as members of this community that that water law has been built for. That's a challenge that faces well in water law and I think it's you know we haven't been too well on that. But I think it's starting to happen now in the kind of things that are out of the press that it that there's conversations going on there's a parent. It's I think it's how you build a relationship with small deals people to start to start to understand each other better. Incredibly late but if we want a lot can't do that if think if if people can only recognize the rights of birds in Nebraska but they can't recognize the rights of people here in Fremont County then that's going to be a failure. But I think in spite of all the litigation and the ANCs it's not over yet and there may be will be will be some Jeff I may just end in that Colorado drainage ticket or.

Certainly the states recognize the tribal reserve rights doctrine that many reservations have quantified. Right so a lot do not. They're just unquantified nobody knows what the numbers are if you will. We really started a dialogue at a number of years ago. We don't have a clever acronym for the groups that we call it the 710 Well the 710 stands for the seven states of the Colorado River drainage and the ten tribes within the called re-engine. And indeed there was a recognition that direct dialogue needed to occur. And as I said with the tribal leaders from those reservations outside of Wyoming they indeed they they make pronouncements they sound no different than a state. They sound different than a state like Wyoming. They're very concerned about environmental regulations infringing upon their ability to develop and use their reserve water rights for their future as we are concerned about those issues and so we find ourselves very much in different alliances around the table. But I think

there's a much more of a we're reawakening as an indicated for inclusion of those issues now than there certainly was 75 years ago. We're starting to get really squeezed with time here so we have a couple of more questions we're going to try to get in. This is from Ed Streater calling from China. Very quickly to what portion of the total electorate power. Oh. Are you part of girl power circuit court. Why should the people who are using your reclamation develop for agriculture will fly over the water route to work. Who wants to tackle that in fairly brief fashion.

I don't know the answer to that question. OK. And. And on the second it seems to me there's no reason unless we think it's important to preserve agriculture in California growing oranges in Wyoming growing alfalfa. An interesting aspect of the Wyoming water wonderful program which I thought you were probably going to ask about it is that it. It truly is offered those kinds of subsidies and done in a very straightforward manner. I mean there was never much analysis of the real cost benefit there was just an assumption that people were going to only pay 25 percent of a project and they were going to pay it at a 4 percent interest rate. And apparently that's a recognition that we think we'd like to preserve this lifestyle whatever you want to call it. It hasn't quite been discussed that way on the House and Senate floor in the legislature but that's apparently been true. I don't have the good numbers off the top of my head but it's it's somewhere in that 10 to 15 percent range it's somewhat analogous to the amount of waters we receive is the amount of hydropower

needed the hydro power produced from the Colorado River does come to Wyoming. It serves both our rural irrigated areas and our municipalities scattered through the state. You know I want to add one thing it is one thing that's going on as few records is part of this new mission trying to encourage water marketing of that subsidized water. And at that point those those farmers maybe more as they recognize the real value of water they may be bought out of that water move to another use and that's one of the ideas that sort of come about in the last 15 years or so to try to encourage that to happen. I have two draws to a close here. I want to thank both of you and Mackinnon and Jeff facit for being with us on this forum for answering questions. I want to apologize to those viewers who called in and ask questions and didn't get on the air we tried to get to as many as we could but it simply wasn't possible to get to all of them. Finally I want to remind viewers that there are still two more episodes of this documentary Cadillac Desert to come. The second

one will be looking at the transformation of California's Central Valley from desert to big scale farming and the last one episode four. We'll look at solutions to water scarcity that's a foot and a much greater scale. The world today. And those solutions go from big dam building to conservation. After that fourth and final documentary we will be back with a different set of guests for another forum in which we will entertain calls from the viewing audience again. So please see the rest of the Cadillac Desert documentaries and be prepared to call again and ask your questions when we have another gathering here in the studio about Wyoming water. Thanks for joining us. Peter