Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> O <br /> 36 <br /> ance and satisfaction with this change. Some question was <br /> however, as to whether it was entirely satisfactory <br /> raised, , m: <br /> to Kansas, recognising this rather anonolous situation with <br /> 0 <br /> respect to oertain water going into the Frontier Canal. <br /> the intervening disoussian now seems to point to the <br /> fact that the Kansas commissioners were negotiating this m <br /> w <br /> Compact, oonoerned with that water, irrespective of eon- <br /> t*tetual.`pr party rights and- uis t2 held he teoh*toal <br /> angles, whether that should be considered as being part <br /> of the Stateline flow. I think the oantrcversy is some- <br /> what resolved because the language, partioularlY in the <br /> last sentence, seems to cover it very spe�sitioally, <br /> "watery carried across the Stateline through any suoh <br /> canals, ' parenthetically proceeding, "servicing any such <br /> °anal shall be considered and be part of the 8tateline flow <br /> as apportioned under this Compact." <br /> MR. IRELAND: You could say "inasmuch as the Frontier <br /> Canal diverts waters of the Arkansas River basin, *-- <br /> tie it down to that and all water-- <br /> MR. VIDAL: I rather like :Gail' s suggestion. <br /> MR. IRELAND: Say water of the Arkansas River means <br /> water originating in the natural basin-- <br /> KR. VIDAL: I do not think it is necessary-- <br />