WSP12578 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001479 a less amount of water to those states than they will actually receive; but if it were entirely omitted, - the entire paragraph, all discussion in the lower states would revolve around the flow of the Colorado River, not on the minimums here set down, as these minimums have been made less than the normal and expectant flow of the river in order to give security to the upper states in their ability to deliver, and we are directly clouding the mind of the public as to the volume of water with which we are dealing. In other words, it would seem to me, if I were to go before the legislatures of the different states I would rather have the whole paragraph out. By discussion would then be hinged upon the seven and a half million consumptive use confined to the upper states, and the normal flow of the reconstructed river, the twenty-two million feet of water, and I think it would make it much less difficult, and intrinsi- cally lose no water to the lower states. Now, I present both sides of that, as I believe, as being of equal importance to the north and to the south, and ask you to give it a little further considera- tion. I don't ask any alterations. I haven't the power to do that, but just ask your considera- tion.142 To this Stephen Davis replied: I think as to those facts we discussed them among ourselves and felt that to be very valuable to us. Nevertheless we will be very glad, between now and noon, to consider the matter of the elimination of that clause.143 The clause was obviously not eliminated. Nor were the reasons for keeping it ever set out concisely in the Record of the Compact negotiations. However, several reasons can be inferred therefrom. First, Paragraph (d) helped to separate the Upper from the Lower Basin more emphatically and to establish more clearly that Lower Basin interests could not secure water rights in any way affecting the Upper Basin. Thus, Norviel said: -54-