Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0014S8 <br /> <br />percentage basis, then on November 14 tried to integrate the <br /> <br />two concepts by proposing that the Lower Basin receive an <br /> <br />amount at Lee's Ferry equivalent to 65 percent of the virgin <br /> <br />flow there, which he justified on the basis of his <br /> <br />projections of irrigable acreage in each Basin.110 <br /> <br />The Upper Basin demurred to this proposition. <br /> <br />Hoover <br /> <br />urged and obtained a general consensus that the actual flow <br /> <br />at Lee's Ferry averaged 16.4 to 17 m.a.f. per annum.lll He <br /> <br />then suggested that the Upper Basin agree to deliver half of <br /> <br />the lower figure each ten years -- 82 m.a.f.112 <br /> <br />The Upper Basin caucused that evening and the next <br /> <br />morning offered to guarantee a delivery of 65 m.a.f. every <br /> <br />ten years at Lee's Ferry .113 Stephen~Davis presented the <br /> <br />Upper Basin's position and defended the offer's modest amount <br /> <br />on the grounds that the Upper Basin needed <br /> <br />a sufficient margin of safety in the figures <br />adopted so that there is reason to believe that the <br />guaranty can be complied with. None of us want to <br />sign a guaranty with the feeling that sometime it <br />would be violated, and I presume none of the <br />southern states want such a guaranty.114 <br /> <br />He also explained that the "total flow of the river for <br /> <br />the first ten years for which we have measurements amounted <br /> <br />to about one hundred and fifty-five million"115 and that the <br /> <br />82 m.a.f. suggested by Hoover, being more than half of that, <br /> <br />was unacceptable. The figures to which he referred appeared <br /> <br />to be derived from data supplied by the Reclamation Bureau <br /> <br />starting in 1899 and using Laguna as the measuring point.116 <br /> <br />curiously enough, they were not set forth in the Record of <br /> <br />-43- <br />