WSP12606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001241 BLACK CANYON INFORMATION PAPI:R Oct. 2000 Testimony of Mr. Larson on the fluctuations oftlows at Lee Ferry, p. 149: The lowest year was 1934. and the virgin flow as we have computed it is 5,640,000, and the historical flaw was 4,396,000 acre-feet. . .. The highest year of record was 1917 when the virgin flow was 24,037,000 acre-feet. Representative William A. Dawson of Utah summarized: And the purpose of these dams you have been speaking of is to hold that water back and to deliver the uniform flow and at the same time conserve the water so that the upper basin States can receive their share and still deliver the 75 million acre-feet over the 10-year period to the lower basin States? Mr. Larson responded that was correct. Testimony ofMr, Larson on Curecanti unit, p. 182: When we made the first investigations on the Gunnison River, we selected a reservoir of the capacity of 2 ~ million acre-feet in order to get some regulatory storage there for downstream developments at Crystal and Whitewater and regulatory storage for the whole Colorado system, and at the same time have some capacity there for the future irrigation uses in the upper Gunnison River, and for replacement there, and for maybe future industrial development. The State of Colorado recommended that the reservoir size be limited to 940,000 acre-feet. Vol. 5, testimony of Elmer Bennett, legislative counsel for the Department of the Interior, p,260: To begin with, let me say that the provisions of the compact must to [sic] read in the light of the instrument as a whole. This is a usual legal principle in construing documents of this type, but in this particular case I would like to quote Hon. Delph Carpenter, who was commissioner for the State of Colorado in the negotiating of the compact. He said: 'First and foremost, it must be ever kept in mind that the intent of the compact is to be ascertained from a consideration of the entire instrument and that each clause must be considered in a connection with other clauses. ' Now in reading the compact as a whole and thus deriving a reasonable interpretation of article III (e) of the compact, we believe that first, one should turn to article I of the compact. That article contains a statement of the purposes thereof. The statement of purpose includes the following expression: 'To secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin. the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. ' I call your attention 8pecifically to the use of the words 'the storage of its waters' in the statement of basic purpose of the compact which appears in article 1 of that compact. The representative of the United States in the negotiation of the compact was Herbert Hoover, who later became President of the United States. In response to questionsfrom Congressman Hayden of Arizona which were contemporaneous with consideration of the compact by the States which were made parties thereto, Mr. Hoover stated the follOWing which will befound at page A-37 of House DOCUm(~l'Jt 717 of the 8U" Congress, otherwise known as the Hoover Dam Documents: 'The future development of the Colorado River is dependent wholly upon the creation of storage. The lower Stales have certainly reached the limit of development by the direct diversion of the flow of the river. ' . . . In the case of the Colorado River. all of the States used the doctrine of appropriation or priority of time, and the result was that the upper basin States, which were developing much less rapidly, were very much concerned over the possibility that lower basin uses would continue to increase at a rapid rate, which would. by virtue of priority of time, use the entire flow of the river and thus preclude future development of the upper basin States. B-2 ./