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 31 Basin in a lean year. In truth, Carpenter argued, the Upper Basin could not take all the water from the river in any year because of the deep canyons and non-irrigabIe land surrounding much of the river in the basin of origin. Furthermore, he argued, the Lower Basin should encourage development in the Upper Basin, because experience had shown, to him at least, that the more development occurred in the upper reaches of a river, the more stable would be the return flows downstream during drought years. 82 Storage would go hand in hand with development, but he was in agreement with the Court in Wyoming v. ColoradQ that it should be incumbent on each division to provide its own dams and reservoirs.83 As with the South Platte River, Carpenter had gained experience during his travels on the Arkansas River in 192 I with the interstate streams commissioner from Kansas. He had recognized that enlarged storage facilities in Colorado would stabilize the Arkansas River, improve return flows for Kansas and enable Colorado to continue its growth and development. As stated in his report to Governor Shoup, Carpenter pointed out that It is not only possible but may be probable that some general plan of storage of water in Colorado for temporary relief of Kansas, may be worked out without injury to the present or future development of the Colorado area, such storage to be availed of until such time as the increasing return waters across the interstate line relieve the situation.84 The same logic applied to the Colorado River. The best possible safeguard for the Lower Basin, one that would assure them of the required amount of water delivered at Lee's Ferry from year to year, would be the immediate development of reservoir storage in the upper area. To do it all at once [said Carpenter] might shock the stream flow at first, and probably the word 'immediate' is too drastic, but the early