Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001391 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />ANSWER TO Q.UESTION NO, 21 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The answer to this question is necessarily one <br /> <br /> <br />that is fraught with conjecture and speculation, We feel <br /> <br /> <br />that the objection, if any there be, should have come <br /> <br /> <br />frcm the State of New Mexico, Any suggestion that she may <br /> <br /> <br />have made would probably have a fitting plaoe here and be <br /> <br /> <br />met by way of answer. However, as Ex-Governor Hannett at <br /> <br /> <br />the meeting in Los Angeles suggested, his interest in the <br /> <br /> <br />consumpti ve use of water is his only suggestion; we must do <br /> <br /> <br />what we can with his suggestion, <br /> <br /> <br />By the tems of the Colorado River Compact, New <br /> <br /> <br />Mexico belongs to the Upper Division, Under the Compacr\:; <br /> <br /> <br />the point of division of the water of the river is fixed <br /> <br /> <br />at Lee's Ferry in Arizona, thus this divisicn eliminates <br /> <br /> <br />any question that New Mexioo _y have ooncerning water that <br /> <br /> <br />may be allowed to flow down the river from the drainage <br /> <br /> <br />basin above Leels Ferry. Therefore New Mexico Should not be <br /> <br /> <br />in any wise interested in this angle of the problem. Ex. <br /> <br /> <br />Governor Hannett's question and thought was directed to the <br /> <br /> <br />floonsUlnptive usefl of the water. This phrase was not olari_ <br /> <br /> <br />fied at the time and just what might be meant by that <br /> <br /> <br />phrase is quite ambiguous. Under the definition of diversion <br /> <br /> <br />less return flow, whioh was given by the Aot, there would <br /> <br /> <br />. be no objection whatever to our applioation. If, upon the <br /> <br /> <br />other hand, New Mexioo's representative meant evaporation, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />13. <br />