Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Mn. H03VI.tL: I think your o.e;;ire is to be unlimited in your <br /> <br />use of the water in your State no r.lE;tter if ttc lower ~tate is <br /> <br />hindered by your ap~ropriationY <br /> <br />M.'l. l;Tl,3ICH: IJ 0, the t i::; not !!lit. o::>inion. 'l'he lower S tE tes <br />have riP.'hts as well as the u'))1er states, but the rights of the <br /> <br />u')1)er States should be equally we}.l regarclei\ and, in eddi tion, <br /> <br />the fact that the use of the gater on the hifhland reaches of <br /> <br />the rit'er system results in increased use by virtue of the return <br /> <br />flow, and b:i l'irt118 of the fact that the consum~tion of water on <br /> <br />the highland will not exceed one and one-half feet,' I maintain <br /> <br />that the doctrine e,:: :'Jriorit;l Should not necessarily hold between <br /> <br />States. <br /> <br />MR. CAHP,dJ'J.'};n: I understnad your pOSition to be thiS, that <br />. the doctrine of priority or of ri,arl~.n rights is merely E rt'le <br /> <br />of local administration within each State? <br /> <br />MR. l~~RICH: Lxactly. <br /> <br />lB. CltRhHTER: By ,'Jhich the ~tate apportions amongst its <br />citizens the benefit of this stream? <br /> <br />MR. UI,LJICH: 1'hat is the idea, and i:' that be appliec on an <br />the <br />interstate streHm without injury to/rights of the several 3t6tes, <br /> <br />then apryly it, but otherwise not. <br /> <br />MH. HO.'lVIl<:L: Jon't you think it can 'be Lpplied on the Colorado <br /> <br />for a generation at least? <br /> <br />S.L. <br /> <br />. <br />