Alex Hager had a piece today on the decision by the Colorado River basin states principles to not appear at next month’s Getches-Wilkinson conference in Boulder. In a process where decisions are being made behind closed doors, outside of public view, Getches-Wilkinson is one of the few places those charged with the decisions show up in public, explain themselves, and answer our questions.
I said stuff:
“The unwillingness to answer the public’s questions suggests that negotiations aren’t going well,” said John Fleck, who teaches water policy at the University of New Mexico. “I think it misses an important obligation in democratic governance of a river that serves 40 million people.”
Alex did a nice job of summarizing the weird nature of this process. We tend to take it for granted, but it’s worth remembering this weirdness:
Unlike many government processes, Colorado River policymakers work in a space that does not involve a mandate for public access. Their meetings are often held behind closed doors, are not listed publicly and do not yield minutes or records that can be viewed by the public….
Reporters’ requests to state water authorities that once yielded interviews with top policymakers are now often met with written statements that tend to be short on detail.
As Joanna Allhands pointed out in Alex’s piece, this undercuts the ultimate legitimacy of the results:
Joanna Allhands, an opinion writer at the Arizona Republic who has written about the Colorado River’s “bankruptcy of leadership,” said more transparency from water policymakers “would be smart as a matter of self preservation.”
“Whatever the decision is made,” she said, “Whatever alternative gets chosen, if people feel like they’ve been left out, guess where we’re headed? We’re going to the Supreme Court.”
Like the Quantification Agreement, this will be settled in the Oval Office
Almost everyone has taken $$ from Ted Kowalski at Walton Family Foundation so why does it matter?
The Upper Basin States want the Lower Basin States to absorb all of the shortage.
#1 The Upper Basin States have taken less than their share for decades. In any prior-appropriation context other than the Compact they would lose those rights.
#2 The Compact requires them to deliver an average of 7.5 MAF over a 10-year period.
We have seen the current Supreme Court defy Winters Doctrine established in 1908. Would the current Supreme Court be more spiteful to California or Colorado and what of the coattails?
Pointing out that GW is expensive, with limited seating (and yes, a virtual option) and while open to the public, not a public process. It is also sponsored by two very wealthy foundations, one with water rights and active interests in buying more, and another that funds the majority of work done in the Basin outside the federal and state employ. Additionally, it would be perhaps more helpful to your readers to focus on the processes that each state has (or doesn’t) to their public to hear feedback, and where and how that is lacking. Is missing GW truly the tragedy you say, or have we become used to taking crumbs?
Fully agree w/ anon. The “public Q&A” sessions of the last several years have frankly been terrible. They are filtered through a moderator so as not to upset anyone. Until they start asking difficult questions instead of just providing a forum for the same (tired) talking points, I’ll pass.
Y’all sure are grumpy. And anonymous grumpiness to boot! (Thanks Alan, for signing your name.)
You sound like the old borscht belt joke: “The food here is terrible – and in such small portions!” It’s not a choice between Getches-Wilkinson and the forum of your dreams. It’s a choice between GWC and nothing for a basin-scale discussion – the role the GW conference has played annually since I started going in 2010. The basin states principles have opted for nothing.
Alan, for the record I’ve never received Walton funding, and only one of the people on the panel I’m moderating has as well.