Laserfiche WebLink
24 A <br /> 4 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> • <br /> rn <br /> there 1s return flow from it. There will be some nice <br /> S <br /> m <br /> questions if we ever get into that theory with the Reclama- <br /> H <br /> tion Bureau of continuing to identify their imported water 0 <br /> D <br /> after several uses and reuses of the return flows ; and <br /> 20 <br /> 0 <br /> whether we ever could as a practical proposition make any <br /> further than the first segregation of its diversion and use <br /> because in spite of anything we do, it will still exist to <br /> some extent In the form of return flows that get back in <br /> the river, that we can't then identify native water from <br /> foreign, <br /> So it seems to me that is all we are concerned with. <br /> I can't see any objeotion on the part of the Commission as <br /> a whole to the recommendations that the engineers feel it is <br /> desirable to add that paragraph to that definition at the end <br /> of the first paragraph on page 4 of the formally submitted <br /> report, and that is just more informative at this time to <br /> the Commission as a whole than anything else.. That is the view <br /> of the Engineering Committee. <br /> Now, any further work that might be done in connec- <br /> tion with a definite compact might bring up some other sug- <br /> gestions and ideas, and at that time I think we should then <br /> leave it open for any ideas that anybody has on it. It may <br /> be that we won't have any need in the compact itself to go <br /> into elaborate definitions, I only say we won' t do it un- <br /> necessarily. <br />