Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;/20 <br /> <br />MR. MUTZ: <br /> <br />small factor. If it is a factor large <br />enough to offer any consolation to our <br />position, it would be-a very happy <br />circumstance." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"You are correct in the latter item. 1952 <br />was the only recent year in which it <br />spilled. In 1941, there were no reported <br />spills. There is some indication, however, <br />that it may have spilled in 1941 and also <br />in 1932. You are correct. These spills <br />would constitute additional credit to <br />Colorado and especially to the Conejos." <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "It would operate to raise the river below <br />the test gage point and it would be Colorado <br />water that was used to that end, and upon <br />equitable grounds, it certinly could be con- <br />tended that any deficit shown on the books <br />here would be reduced by the amount of any <br />spill that had taken place through the Lake <br />.at the expense of Colorado because it would <br />represent delivery not literally through <br />the gaging point, but delivery around the <br />gaging point." <br /> <br />MR. MUTZ: "That is correct." <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "It may be too small to work with." <br /> <br />MR. MUTZ: "That is correct. We.know that it spilled <br />considerable water, but we ran into difficulty <br />in fixing the amount of these spills. <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "If that phase of this report could be' built <br />up to any greater-extent, it might tend to <br />1 help out our case." <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />"That has been discussed at the last two <br />Compact meetings and I think New Mexico and <br />Texas would be.willing to recognize whatever <br />we could show. <br /> <br />I <br />