Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> m <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> n <br /> m <br /> D <br /> MR. +A P.L k1 Q14 3 That is right. I don' t know haw much <br /> more detail you care to go into. I am making some analyses, Z' <br /> I am sure George ie too, of the first results that hwire oo e o <br /> out of what we are calling study No. 2, and they bring up <br /> some questions. That new revised study isn' t yet analysed <br /> but in the discussion of it we have already enoountered some <br /> matters that are going to require review, analysis and study, <br /> and they lead back to a review or again an analysts of No. 1, <br /> because we don' t want to be misled by comparing two rosutts <br /> that are not ooaparable. As the central keeps telling us, <br /> we can+t compare fish with fowl. <br /> CakIAUAN iR : You have got to get on t) comparable <br /> basis. <br /> 14414 pATTEhS * t 1 would like, if you will perait it, <br /> alineral, to go just a little farther, subject to any addition <br /> at this point on No, 1 that Goorge may oars to inWeet here. <br /> I would like to diseruas scut briefly what we sail No. <br /> 1.A to try to explain to you what it means, why we did it, and <br /> what partial results we have already gotten out of that. 1•.A <br /> was ae study that was engaged in that you might know from the <br /> requests of the various agenoles for the apportionment and <br /> maintenance of a fish pool in Caddo.. Reservoir. <br /> In that 1.A it was assumed that a pool of 10,E aere <br /> test would be maintained at all times in the reservoir, that <br /> instead of releasing all of the water that went in it for <br />