WSPC02721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ \ 130'2. -2- . Or in any case, of a~5uming to become their guarantor for delivery of the Compact quantity to the lower basin. Color1ido h"is not rroposed 1n the basin rerort, for the natural physical ba- sin, proj~cts that ar~ 5i~y cases of wishful thinking, but inste~d, for the most part, projects greatly needed to preserve the ecooony of existing communities. This should not be taken to mean that Colorado will now complacently agree to Ii division of upper basin water resource for all time, on the basis of demands by other states for distantly future projects that obviously cannot now, or p~rhaps ever, be justified economically. If any such projects in other slates failed to materialize, or proved, as seems most probable for many of them, wholly imprac- ticable, Color~do would by a division of w~ter now, simply have renounced its right in water, mu~~ of which origin~tes within the state, in f~vor of claims by other states which ultimately would prove unfounded. This is a course of action far more lenient than is observed within the state itself. Analysis of water supplied by each state of the upper basin for the period 1914 - 1943 hps required the use of tbe longest key records to permit extension, by sound statistical methods of other necessary records. Areas that drain from one state through another above key stations have had to be segregated, and in some instAnces, such as Little Snake and S~n JU~n rivers, supply had to be appor- tioned between two st~tes. The resulting data ar~ an improvement over former es- timates by this office, probably as n~rly elZ:act as will result until the recodd of a n~ber of new stations has been accumulated. . In the b~sin report much stress is laid on th~ r~duced runoff of the decade, 1931 - 1940, a minimum for any decade in the period of r~cord. Since this term 1s a p~rt of the longer period, both as chos~n for this study and ~s derived in Ap- pendix I, = f~lse impression is created by thus setting orf this period from the rest of tho'! record. Averag~s for th~ longer periods include the effect of this decade and only by ~ study of operation of the proposed middle river storA~e, ostensibly intended to meet this vprv condition, C1n ~ corr~ct id~~ of its actual effect be obt~ined. As.preented in the basin r~port no allowanc~ is made for the succe,ssi ve IO-year deli very periods the Comp".lct provides, the operation of which would somewhat ch~nge the picture for the better. Estim~ted pres('nt depletions, both for the longer period Ind thf" arT decade are merely matters of infonnation. F)ow durin~ either period is obviously net after such depletions, whatever they may actu~lly have been. Only the depletions of future projects are chargeable &gainst present averqge or minimum flow. In such a dec~de qS 1931 - 1940 even present d~pletions could not continue at their accustomed rate and tor the record, in this study, have been reduced duri~ the minim~~ decRde, in the r~tio of one-h~lf the dcficip.ncy of flow from each state. 1111 Due to lack of water in areas of origin, during ~other such period d~p1e- tions will 1ikelvise be reduced for 811 projects proposed far future development in th~ basin report. The ratio ass~ed for present depletions was chosen after A review of actu~l conditions. For eXAmple, in Western Color~do large are~s with senior priority were not affected during the decade of low ~lowj in other large areas pr~ctises were so varied th~t the craps customarily produced were largely salvaged, but jun~or rights ev~ryWherc got little or no water in the dryer ~ars. The ratio of reduction in depletion by one-half the decrease in st~ flow is frankly ~ guess, does not at all corr~spond to the variation from cr~ps produced in more.favor~ble ye~rs, ~nd ought, if th~t were possible, to be more closely