Laserfiche WebLink
xl <br /> m <br /> 36 0 <br /> C <br /> c <br /> n <br /> m. <br /> o- <br /> > <br /> a new beneficial development upstream. <br /> m. <br /> However, if and when Kansas would materially increase Z' <br /> her acreage, that new development would then create a situa- o <br /> tion under which they might well prove that if there was any <br /> future development upstream it would materially deplete the <br /> usable quantity and availability of these new lands in Kansas. <br /> There is my point. <br /> B. TATE: That could be applied to both states, not <br /> one state. <br /> MR. IRELAND: Well, I am looking at it from a practical <br /> standpoint, that there is great opportunity for increased <br /> acreage in Kansas, whereas in d7 it is probably limited. As <br /> a matter of fact, it could never exceed what the existing <br /> decrees pall for today. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: I apprehend some rather general mis- <br /> underetanding of this whole paragraph. This discussion seems <br /> to focus on the tall of the dog, rather than on its head and <br /> body. <br /> This paragraph, taking it from its start, deals with <br /> future oonstruotion. Such construction might conceivably be <br /> new ditches, such as you have Just referred to, but it deals <br /> with such future construction in the light of its effect upon <br /> the available water supply. <br /> I think if we keep that concept clearly before us, that <br />