My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 07/01,02/1946
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 07/01,02/1946
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2014 1:51:10 PM
Creation date
11/17/2014 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Third Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 07/01,02/1946 Denver, Co.
State
CO
Author
Commissioners
Title
Third Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 07/01,02/1946 Denver, Co.
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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
70 <br /> -u <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> during that time. Now, if that is correct, would, then, a <br /> study and engineering figures on its presence during these <br /> later years have any value? <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: Well, another way of interpreting such Z <br /> a study is to assume the dam was completed in 1942, and that <br /> 0 <br /> history will repeat itself in 38 years as it started in 1943; <br /> either that the dam was completed in 1908 and that the water yj <br /> records were as they were, or that the dam was completed in <br /> 1942 and that history will repeat itself in 35 years. <br /> MR. PATTERSON: In the future. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: I think it is of interest to the Com- <br /> mission as a whole to understand in detail the work of this <br /> Committee, which has had the four meetings. We have been <br /> able, as stated in the report, very harmoniously and ef- <br /> fectively to iron out to a large extent, in fact, I would say <br /> completely, the technical differences that come in matters <br /> of definition and assumption and so on, because we have gone <br /> at this as a joint study, and the differences of interpreta- <br /> tion which marked the first studies that Kansas presented <br /> at the first meeting and the discussion thereof of Colorado <br /> in its written paper. All of that has gone by the board now <br /> because , having our feet under the same table and thrashing <br /> out the points involved, we have arrived at a complete under- <br /> standing as to the engineering definitions and terms, and <br /> to that extent we have already made, I think, well worth while <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.