Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />z:; <br /> <br />estimation of the virgin flow of the Colorado. The 1922 compact \~S negotiated <br /> <br />when recent history provided the optimistic flow figures discussed earlier. By <br /> <br />contrast, the UCRBCC had fresh in its memory the drought years of 1931-1940 <br /> <br />that created the Dust Bowl. The flow at Lee Ferry in 193~ was a paltry 5.6 <br /> <br />, l' 76 , d ' <br />roll lon acre-feet ,less than a thlr of the average flow ln tho years pre- <br /> <br />.' ~ <br /> <br />ceding 1922. <br /> <br />Breitenstein noted the Engineering Advisory Committee's warning that there <br /> <br />'laS not as much \1ater in the Colorado as the Colorado River Compact Commission <br /> <br />thought there ,;ould be. The average virgin flO\1 at Lee Ferry bet\leen 1923 and <br /> <br /> <br />1947 was 14,300,000 acre-feet per year;7 4.5 million acre-feet less than the <br /> <br />figure taken as accurate by Carpenter and others in 1922. (This 1922-1947 <br /> <br />average compares closely with the average of 1922-1983, which was estimated at <br /> <br />14.0 million acre-feet per year at Lee Ferry.) With the evidence pointing <br /> <br />to a dryer Colorado River, Breitenstein recommended a percentage basis of <br /> <br />allotment: <br /> <br />...if you use terms of percentage rather than fixed acre-foot <br />quantities, then you have a flexible method of apportionment <br />which can apply under all conditions and the proportion or the <br />ratio.. is al1lays the same.. .it seems clear that there are. ..no <br />advantages for the Use of the acre-foot method.78 <br /> <br />Commissioner Stone and Breitenstein were not the only ones who thought a <br /> <br />division between the Upper Basin in terms of acre-feet was untenable. cr.airman <br /> <br />Bashore, believing that "nobody in existence today or in the future, outside <br /> <br />of Providence, can say what the \1ater supply of the Colorado River is going to <br />79 . f h " 'd ' <br />be", was representatlve 0 t e Commlsslon as a whole ln en orslng the percentage <br /> <br />basis. This was something of a break from the Colorado River Compact, but a <br /> <br />break that \1aS seen to be necessary to ensure that the benefits and responsibilities <br /> <br />-;n......,..-r::: ~. '-~' --~. ~-.. <br />