Laserfiche WebLink
[ Footnote 23 ] This expert for the Bureau of Reclamation, C. F. Gleason, testified: <br />'Q. -If there is an error in a series of four or five days as to the amount of natural flow in relation to the <br />storage, that might mean that a natural flow canal might get more or might get less than its due allotment of <br />water, isn't that right? A. -That might be true over a very short period. However, the corrections made which <br />are shown in the work sheets as plus or minus storage in that section of the river are made to balance out in <br />such a way that over the season there is no robbery of natural flow or storage and no particular accrual to it <br />as a result of this method of calculation. <br />'Q. -That is, an attempt is made to balance out, according to your judgment of what ought to be the amount <br />of natural flow and storage at the State line, is that right? A. -It is not balanced out accord -to judgment. It is <br />balanced out mathematically. <br />'Q. -But it is balanced out mathematically upon what factors? A. -Upon the factors of plus and minus challen <br />storage, if you want to use that term. If we plus storage into the channel some days, we minus the total of <br />the same amount later on to make it balance out. <br />'Q. -That is to say, and you just testified in that way, that your balancing out of these plus and minus <br />quantities that you put in is based upon your judgment of how much natural flow and storage water is at the <br />State line, in view of the conditions and the quantities of natural flow and storage at Alcova? A. -Yes, that is <br />correct. <br />'Q.- Accordingly, the plus or minus corrections are based upon this matter of judgment. A. -Yes.' <br />[ Footnote 1 ] State of Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 , 64 S.Ct. 176. <br />[ Footnote 2 ] State of Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 , 27 S.Ct. 655; State of Colorado v. Kansas, 320 <br />U.S. 383 , 64 S.Ct. 176. <br />[ Footnote 3 ] State of Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 496, 42 S.Ct. 594. <br />[ Footnote 4 ] Id., 260 U.S. 1 . <br />[ Footnote 5 ] Id., 286 U.S. 494, 52 S.Ct. 621; Id., 298 U.S. 573 , 56 S.Ct. 912; Id., 309 U.S. 572 , 60 S.Ct. <br />765. <br />[ Footnote 6 ] State of Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 , 49 S.Ct. 163; Id., 281 U.S. 179, 50 S.Ct. 266; <br />Id., 289 U.S. 395 , 53 S.Ct. 671; Id., 309 U.S. 569 , 60 S.Ct. 789; Id., 311 U.S. 107 , 61 S.Ct. 154; Id., 313 <br />U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1090. <br />Copyright © 1994 -2001 FindLaw <br />