Laserfiche WebLink
e , <br /> 93 <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> that. I think several members here of the Commission have 0 <br /> commented on that. -, <br /> One subject that certainly deserves attention and will <br /> involve considerations other than engineering, although in- Z <br /> eluding engineering, is the recent letter and the detailed <br /> n <br /> statement from the Department of the Interior, which all of <br /> you are familiar with. That is one item of business that N� <br /> certainly warrants the Commission's attention concurrently <br /> with the progress of these engineering studies. <br /> MR. PATTERSON: If I may interrupt and go back to the <br /> discussion under the motion that has been made, one general <br /> question that is asked of me is how do the records we are <br /> compiling differ from the records that were introduced as <br /> exhibits in the Kansas suit. I would like to make a rather <br /> general answer to that point: <br /> Generally speaking all of these stream flow records and <br /> the diversion records of Colorado ditches and the diversion <br /> records of Kansas ditches are identical with the records that <br /> were assembled and introduced as exhibits in the Kansas suit. <br /> They differ in this regard, that the recent four years, that <br /> is, 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942, have now been included in the <br /> study period, while the records introduced in the case stopped <br /> in 1938. Now, most of those records, I think, have been again <br /> checked. <br />