Laserfiche WebLink
<br />274. <br />MR. EUERSON: HOVlever, there is another consideration thero, I boliove, <br /> <br />Mro Chairman, and that is since water usors aro not appropriators, the <br /> <br /> <br />right is not in thore, <br /> <br /> <br />CR\IRliIAN HOOVER: "Appropriators er users." <br /> <br /> <br />MR, EMERSON: That is bettor. <br /> <br /> <br />CJ-IATIlMAN HOOVER: And I would suggost that it would be more clear <br /> <br /> <br />instead of saying "so storod from tho apportionment" to say "out of tho <br /> <br /> <br />apportionment, '" It makos it very cloar. <br /> <br /> <br />JIJDGE SLOAN: Wouldn It it be "the water apportioned to tho. LeVlor Basin <br /> <br /> <br />in Articlc III that should bc impounded.'" <br /> <br /> <br />MR. EMERSON: Not necessarily. <br /> <br /> <br />CILURMAN HOOVEH: Not necessarily. . <br /> <br /> <br />JUDGE SLOAN: The other wording is just the same in fact, is it not'? <br /> <br /> <br />Thoro is no difforence it seems to me, "be satisfiod so far as may be <br /> <br /> <br />from the water apportj.oned,IIi <br /> <br /> <br />CHtlIR.MAN HOOVER: It might. I think that we must limit U tel tilat. <br /> <br /> <br />rj.ghto Otherwise, it is no relief. <br />JUDGE DAVIS: I think "be attached to " weuld be better if ,it said <br />"shall 'attach to," <br />CHJ\Iill!i\N HOOVEH: "Shall a.ttach to and be satisfied" is that right'?' <br />JUDGE DAVIS.' Yes. It is a matter of English, that IS all. <br />MR. HAMELE; Viouldnlt it be better: to cut out thewerds"wator se <br />stered frem the." <br />CHAIRMAN HOOVER: No, that wouldn't carry the meaning. We are'doing <br />here what 'is.perfectly possible,. not. to deny a marl IS right by gi.ving' hm <br />anothe;r- source of supply. His right runs right up against the place where <br />he makes his diversion. If you give him a source !of supply above' that <br />point,_you do not disturb. his right. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />.. <br />