Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> a <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: Mr. Tate. <br /> m <br /> MR. TATE; The only suggestion I would make is that <br /> we give careful thought here to defining the term that we <br /> use so that it cannot be questioned as to exactly what we <br /> mean, though it takes some extensive explanation to explain <br /> it sufficiently; and then I think, regardless of the word i <br /> we use or what is the handle that we may put on anything, it <br /> is rather Immaterial what that word is. It appears to me <br /> that these words are rather to the point here in this study <br /> of the Engineering Committee. <br /> MR. IRELAND: We might insert the word original <br /> water. That has its original source and would be redundant. <br /> Why limit it to the Colorado River system? I don' t know <br /> whether geographically it would be possible to import water <br /> from any other source. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: It isn' t limited to Colorado streams. <br /> The Colorado River system is given as an example-- <br /> ME. IRELAND: Why mention it? <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: --and as oeing the most pertinent <br /> case, but it is physically possible to-- <br /> MR. IRELAND: You already say there, water other than <br /> the Arkansas watershed. It would cover everything. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: You gentlemen appreciate the fact <br /> that development of this language and its submittal by the <br /> Engineering Committee has been for the purpose of bringing <br />