Laserfiche WebLink
35 A <br /> A <br /> O <br /> O <br /> C <br /> n <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> a <br /> CHAIRMAN KRA M ER: That is right, in the use of the <br /> water. Z; <br /> a <br /> MR. IRELAND: I am not too serious about it. Z <br /> MR. VIDAL: As a matter of fact, as good a wording <br /> 0 <br /> in the first line would be, "the major jor reasons for this Com, <br /> pant are to settle, " and so forth, But I think we are quib- <br /> Ming about words perhaps unnecesSariIy. I am not criticizing <br /> anybody's statements. <br /> CHAIRMAN 1 RA3 R I think maybe we are quibbling, )ir. <br /> Vidal, but I think it indicates serious thinking, word by <br /> word, that this Compact deserves.. We should not fudge over any <br /> even minor aspects of later interpretation. It would Been, <br /> though, that the wording is acceptable with the change that <br /> has been noted in the third line of A, so that that would <br /> read, "concerning the waters of the Arkansan River and their <br /> control, eenservation, " and eo forth. <br /> Paragraph I3, any comment there, It is very brief. <br /> Paragraph C. I have this question, and I think it is <br /> a recurring one in other planes., Paragraph C reads: "Equitably <br /> apportion between the :States of Colorado and Kansas the waters <br /> of the Arkansas River and their utilization and the benefits <br /> c'_rising from the construction," and no forth. <br /> It seems to ;:me that is nomewhat ate. xard, having two <br /> "aide" that are comm./hat unrelated. Would it be better to <br /> nay, apport ,o.r: betwoen the States of Colorado and <br />