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 32 development of that upper area, the withholding of the water at the source, the releasing of these waters gradually in the very season when the return flows and waste runoff would turn back to the stream their various excess, would supply the stream below. If you presuppose an adjustment upon reservoir construction below. . . you should presuppose reservoir construction above, so that the reservoir construction below may work in coordination with that above. 85 Central to Carpenter's desire to protect the Upper Basin was his conviction that reservoir development, full economic prosperity and the Upper Basin's ability to utilize its allotment of 7.5 maf/year would depend on a Compact that recognized the importance of time. He knew that the Upper Basin needed a lot of time to grow. He wanted to give the Lower Basin "absolute free unbridled" rights to build their works in return for a "declaration of non-interference with the development over the next 50-100 years of the upper territory. ,,86 When the Wvoming v. Colorado decision was announced, he felt even greater urgency for a time limit in the Compact that would protect the Upper Basin. "Now," he said, "the doors are thrown wide open and Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico are facing the situation that they must use every means within their power to prevent the construction of any enormous works upon the lower Colorado River until the right of the upper states to use such water as they need in the future has been assured to them by interstate treaty. "87 A P. Davis supported him, but he did not want the Compact to tie up the seven states for more than fifty years. At the end of this period, he counselled, a new allocation should be made "which would stilI protect the development in the Upper Basin, so long as it did not interfere with the development that had already taken place in the Lower Basin. ,,88