WSP04958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 afflicting that section is what produces the reduction in the stream. Therefore, the minimum should be of such a quantity that the penalty of the drought wilI be equalIy distributed over the whole river system.78 It would be unfair, he argued, to insist that the Upper Basin fix a minimum that would apply to the Upper Basin during drought years. The drought's impact should be alIocated among the people of the entire basin, "much the same as we alIocate the waters in fat years." Carpenter did not want a compact to which the states could not reasonably adhere. "If you crowd us on the minimum," he said, "we wilI have to have a protecting clause on precipitation, because we can't control that. Nature will force us into a violation, any possibility of which we should strenuously avoid in our compact, because that would provoke turmoil and strife. "79 The engineers had told him that it would take at least fifty years of records to know what the probable future maximum and minimum flows of the river would be. The "minimum" which Carpenter believed would be fair for both basins was an "aggregate minimum delivery in a ten-year period. "80 The annual flow, Carpenter explained, would rise and falI with the circumstances of precipitation, but over a ten-year period, using a running average, the Lower Basin would receive a guaranteed 75 maf Carpenter described the ten-year calculation as folIows: Suppose you were on the twelfth year. You take that year and include the nine preceeding years. . . .Each year would have nine years behind it. Anyone year along with nine preceeding years makes a ten-year period.8l Norviel's objections to Carpenter's suggestion were based on a presumption that the Upper Basin might physically withhold all the water from the Lower