WSP11373 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00185~ are derived, not from actual measurement.s on the stream, hut from con-elations with flows of other streams. In some instances, records were never kept or were lost. Tn sueh cases it is eommon to estimate flows by correlating such recorus of the stream that do exist with longer records of 'adjaeent' streams thought to have a relationship to the one in question, "Third, prediction of future supply depends upon repeti,. tion of past conditions in future years. In making' these estimates, experts select some portion of the historical record which they expect will recur. But the experts do not agree on which portion of the record to select. Certainly the period chosen as 'repre- sentative' determines in large measure the ultimate conclusion regarding supply. In this case, at least four different periods were put forth as the proper standard for analysis. Arizona and California chose the period 1909-1956; Nevada selected 1930- ] 956. In addition, the periods of 1914-1956 and 1922-1956 were suggested as appropriate for study. Such disagreement indicates the difficulty in arriving at any' reliable conclusion as to which period will be repeated, if any. "The disagreement over the proper period for study is actually merely a reflection of the fourth and fundamental dif- ficulty in determining supply of the basin. That difficulty is the erratic character of the rivers therein. 1n all of the represent- ative periods selected, there were, from year to year. extreme variations in flow, . . A prediction of future flow. hased on past condition~, approaches the impossible under such circum- stances. . ." Lastly, said the Mastel', supply in the Lower Basin is af- fected by uses in the Upper Basin. "Increased Upper Basin uses," he explained. "will diminish the Lower 8asin supply except as the Upper Basin is limited by Article III of the Compact. Yet no one can say with certainty what innease may occur in Upper Basin uses or at what time," For these reasons, concluded the Master, he had become con- vinced that it was impossible to estimate future Lower Basin supply "within useful limits of accuracy." "Of course," he acknowledged, "it would be possible to pick an extremely conservative figure below which the supply in any given period could not be expected to fall and call that figure 'safe annual yield,' or 'dependable supply.' However, such a figure would be totally unrealistic in most years and would shed no light on the proper disposition of this case." In Part Two of his draft report-"Jurisdiction and Justic.i- ability"-the Special Master reviewed the events which brought Arizon~ into court, He alluded to the I'efusal of the House 1n- teriol' and Insular Affairs Committee to approve the Central Arizona Project until Arizona established its right to the water in question. Then he said: "It is apparent from these circ~lmstances that Arizona will not be nble to develop the Central Arizona Project without an