Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> 34 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> less water across the Stateline under this Compact than they <br /> got before. <br /> Now, what concern can it be to Colorado if in some manner <br /> 0 <br /> after we get a smaller water supply with a better degree of <br /> stabilisation and with some established place on the river, <br /> whereas we now have none, we can make a little better use of <br /> that water than we have been able to make? Among those uses <br /> I think :I should point out here are not only the actual ditch <br /> diversions which are available for meacuram•nt, but the water <br /> which has gone into ground storage through the years to re- <br /> charge the pumping area down below the amount in the past, <br /> but based on our estimates about 26,000 acre feet a year. <br /> I fail to see where anything like that is needed or <br /> desirable as it is proposed. <br /> May I speak one sentence or two off the record? <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: At your pleasure, Mr. Knapp. <br /> (Discussion off the record. ) <br /> MR. TATK: There is one thing that Kr. Knapp did not <br /> mention. In releases from storage Kansas is prohibited from <br /> restoring. We can't call for water and restore it in Kansas, <br /> so there isn't any possibility of our gaining any advantage, <br /> but I think it would be to subject Colorado water users in <br /> Colorado to disadvantage to have that limitation in there. <br /> Now, that as it now reads applies to both the water users <br />