My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 08/28,29/1946
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 08/28,29/1946
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/25/2014 4:07:29 PM
Creation date
11/17/2014 3:45:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Fourth Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 08/28,29/1946
Basin
Arkansas
Author
Commissioners
Title
Fourth Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 08/28,29/1946
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.
/
95
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
O <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> As a praotioal matter, my own view also is that <br /> it would be stating it in most hopeful 1 uge, something <br /> between five and ten years before it could ever eventuate Z <br /> and we would, if we oon•idered it, be guessing. But funds. <br /> 0 <br /> mentally, I think we are safe in taking the position that we < <br /> ems t t consider any supply furnished by water imported mat <br /> the Colorado River in eenneotton with the dam* with Onus <br /> over tie waters of the Arkansas River-. <br /> CHAIRMAN RR: Would you mind if I ea ,l on or <br /> ask Rr. Patterson, who I think is most familiar with the <br /> engineering plans and possibilities, to elaborate on that <br /> phase of that for us in reapeot to the Arkansas dive lion? <br /> MR. PATTERSOKI In this respect, I agree with Henry's <br /> viewpoint, that the project is one of a future category, and <br /> yet it seems to me that we should be careful in drafting a <br /> a pact eoneerning the Arkansas River water and defining the <br /> relative rights of the two states with interests in that <br /> matter. <br /> I think we should realise this: that the Caddo& <br /> Reservoir was built with public funds, and the position of <br /> the Fish and Wildlife service is that its use for irrigation <br /> constitutes more or less of a private benefit, whereas its <br /> use for a fish pool is in the nature of a public benefit, and <br /> they base their request for an allocation of 10,000 acre feet <br /> of t'apaarlty wa4ttr 11,tn the., fact that they arc then maktng nee <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.