Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> p <br /> O <br /> C <br /> (-) <br /> 12 0 <br /> tween Mr. Tate's suggestion and my own on that question. <br /> H <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: I understand now these two drafts <br /> H <br /> 0 <br /> of Article V-I are substantially parallel in all respects <br /> except that Kr. Tate' s version contained a provision <br /> whereby the Administration to be provided for in this < <br /> N <br /> 4capaot would have entry of a finding and determination I <br /> as a condition precedent to any change of diversion by <br /> legal process. <br /> It that understanding is correct, it seems to me that <br /> the issue here at stake is a relatively simple and clear <br /> one and one that we ought to be able to dispose of <br /> quickly in- vier of the full discussion of the pros and <br /> cons. I think Mr. Tate is properly to be heard from at <br /> this juncture. I do not propose to preclude any general <br /> discussion, however, but give Mr. Tate the next round. <br /> MR. TATE: Frankly, I haven't anything to say in <br /> respect to this except that my idea in drafting it was <br /> that Colorado should really have no objection to it, <br /> after the Administration heard and determined that <br /> matter. Other matters in connection with the adminis- <br /> tration are operation of the dam and release of water, <br /> which of course will be determined by the Administration <br /> which we establish here, and which is a joint body. <br /> CHAIRMAN $RAKER: Mr. Arn, do you have some comment? <br />