Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001477 <br /> <br />means at this moment to protect the riqhts of <br />either basin as will assure continued development <br />of the river. (emphasis added)137 <br /> <br />Emerson commented at one point upon the need for protection <br /> <br />from potential Lower Basin encroachments upon Upper Basin <br /> <br />water rights: <br /> <br />One of the primary reasons Wyoming is in this is to <br />protect itself against any embargo that she feels <br />might be placed upon her future developments. ... <br />We would not subscribe to any doctrine that would <br />mean any race for developments as has been inti- <br />mated.138 <br /> <br />Carpenter similarly stated: <br /> <br />The state of Colorado could not look with favor <br />upon any plan which would degenerate into a mere <br />contest of speed whereby an unfortunate, an <br />unnatural growth would be forced in one section in <br />order to keep pace with what might be a natural <br />development in another section.139 <br /> <br />Indeed, the Compact Commissioners intended what might be <br /> <br />termed a double equation: <br /> <br />the apportionment of each basin <br /> <br />was to be equal, and the apportionment of each Basin was to <br /> <br />equal the present and future need of each Basin. <br /> <br />This <br /> <br />formula evolved because the needs of each Basin from the <br /> <br />mainstream were calculated to be approximately equal. It <br /> <br />must be acknowledged that the estimates of future water needs <br /> <br />for each Basin did vary during the Compact negotiations in <br />sometimes baffling fashion depending on the source, but <br />nonetheless they remained at roughly the same level. The <br /> <br />Upper Basin's present and future use was calculated at 6.3 to <br /> <br />6.8 m.a.f.,140 while the Lower Basin was believed to need 5.1 <br /> <br />to 6.1 m.a.f.141 for present and future use from the main- <br /> <br />-52- <br />