My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10568
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10568
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:13:38 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:24:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
11/19/1922
Author
Co. R Compact Comm.
Title
Minutes of Colorado Compact Commission - Meeting #19
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />19 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />MR. HAMELE: Yes. <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN HOOVER: I see no objection to that. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. EMERSON: Just what did the Committee have in mind in <br /> <br />paragraph (a) with respect to the Waters of the Colorado River <br /> <br /> <br />system IfnotU covered by the terms of this compact. It seems to <br /> <br />me tho.t consideration should be confined to anything that wa,s <br /> <br />covered by the terms of this compact and not make p~ovision for <br />going outside. <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS: For ins~ance Arizona and New Mexico have a con- <br /> <br />troversy over the waters of the Gila. <br /> <br />This would simply allow <br />, , , <br /> <br />Arizona and New Mexico to get together and dispu~s it and possibly <br /> <br />..- <br /> <br />settle that controversy~ It is not covered by the terms of this <br />compact, that is all. <br /> <br />JUDGE SLOl.N: The purpose is to remove the lo.st clause from <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />this paragraph and make an inclusive clause to take care of this <br /> <br />situation and others. as well. <br /> <br />,MR. DAVIS: Yes, a separate article, possibly one of the late <br /> <br />articles in the compact. <br /> <br />C!;11i.IRMAJiI HOOVER: Is that artLcle agreeable with the,last <br />clause cut out? <br /> <br />MR. JilORVIEL: Does the .word I'shouldlf m,ean at the time? The <br /> <br />first word? <br /> <br />MR. MC KISICK: There is one thing that occurs to me in , <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />connection wi~h the articJes as now before us, M~, C~Qirman? that <br /> <br /> <br />was a suggestion which has been made at some prior conferences over <br /> <br />I; <br /> <br />the article, that a time limit should be inserted within which <br /> <br />the Governor upon whom the request is made should act. That the <br /> <br />Governor of the State shall ,within sixty or ninety days, or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.