Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001473 <br /> <br />considerable importance as a statement of purpose,130 <br /> <br />declares in pertinent part: <br /> <br />To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided <br />into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of <br />part of the Colorado River System is made to each <br />of them with the provision that further equitable <br />apportionments may be made. <br /> <br />In assessing whether the northern states assumed the <br /> <br />risk of mistake, the standard of section IS4(b) of the <br />RESTATEMENT must still be applied. Was the Upper Basin aware <br /> <br />of the insufficiency of the stream flow data, but treated it <br /> <br />as sufficient nontheless? Again the record is not totally <br /> <br />consistent, but on balance, as the statement of Arizona's <br /> <br />advisor Sloan implies, both Basins appeared to believe that <br /> <br />the available data was complete enough to provide a rational <br /> <br />basis for a 10 year delivery commitment. <br /> <br />In this respect <br /> <br />Carpenter said, <br /> <br />It was my thought that the twenty-year record that <br />we had will not be improved by more records at this <br />point. And the hydrographers and experts advise me <br />that a twenty-year record on a river is adequate in <br />its completeness and includes enough years to <br />warrant an assumption that the average there <br />deduced would be the average flow of the river in <br />the future.131 <br /> <br />Perhaps the clearest indication of this trust in the <br /> <br />completeness in the data occurred in the course of a discus- <br /> <br />sion over an annual minimum delivery obligation, which <br /> <br />Norviel sought for a time and then dropped. In arguing for a <br />very low figure, Carpenter noted: <br /> <br />I think I am correct in saying that, when we come <br />to consider the extreme minimum, a 20 year period <br />is not indicative of that one year minimum. We <br /> <br />-48- <br />