Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> v <br /> 37 0 <br /> m , <br /> future construction must not adversely affect the water <br /> supply, then we haven't anything to argue about. When we talk Z' <br /> about new ditches taking <br /> ing additional water, if the water supply o <br /> has been increased or there has been a situation created Where <br /> new uses can be made, this will permit it, but it permits it = <br /> with th@ <br /> proteatian of keepiAg sacred the available water N <br /> supply that is pet <br /> up by the Compact. <br /> I Wonder if we haven't really been looking at this <br /> through the wrong end at the telescope. <br /> MR. TATE, I think that is right. That is my view of it. <br /> It is applicable above as well as below. I think it was a <br /> serious limitation on Colorado and Kansas; both, Gail. <br /> MR. IRELAND: I see your viewpoint, all right. <br /> MR. TATE: It is not one against the other. It is to <br /> protect us both. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: And to protect in the first instance <br /> the available water supply. <br /> MR. IRELAND: It would be a limitation. on new develop- <br /> ment in Kansas. They might get past the point of using or <br /> wanting more water than came across the Stateline. <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: That is right. <br /> MR. ANAPP: But there is no facility under the Compact <br />