Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0014139 <br /> <br />the negotiations and they deviated somewhat from the USGS <br />data on which the Commissioners had relied up to that point. <br />Norviel protested that this proposition would allow over <br />10 m.a.f. per annum to the Upper Basin and only 6.S m.a.f. to <br />the Lower, while "our needs are practically even."117 He <br />additionally retorted, "I don't want to put the upper <br />states in the position of guaranteeing anything at all. "118 <br />Davis replied, "we don't like the idea of a guaranty any <br />better than you do, "119 but that it seemed inescapable. <br />Norviel then requested 82 m.a,f.. every ten years at Lee's <br />Ferry. Hoover provided some support to Norviel's stand by <br />remarking that the Upper Basin's offer was insufficient to <br />cover the Lower Basin's needs, which he estimated at almost <br />7.5 m.a.f. per annum, including 1.7S m.a.f. for its portion <br />of a Mexican Treaty duty.120 Hoover then astutely identified <br />the essential dilemma confronting the negotiations. liThe <br />primary difficulty," he said, "is whether the northern states <br />would be secure in guaranteeing enough to cover the needs of <br />the southern states."121 <br />Norviel proposed that the dilemm~ be resolved by <br />annually splitting the virgin flow of the River at Lee's <br />Ferry evenly between the two Basins. However, this sug- <br />gestion, which would have prevented the Upper Basin's current <br />quandary, was quickly abandoned. A consensus emerged that it <br />was simply infeasible because it "would be very difficult, <br />impossible practically" to calculate the virgin flow at the <br /> <br />-44- <br />