Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A review of the 9riginal CRSP criteria of March 9, <br />, <br />, <br />1962, reveals no! reference to any "permanent" <br />allocation to th~ Southern Division. However, a <br />number of documents submitted to Western by <br />Southern Division customers suggest that a <br />, ' <br />permanent al10c~tion was intended by the Secretary <br /> <br />, <br />of the Interi or ;under the ci rcumstances as they <br />existed over 20 iyears ago. The question which <br />arises out of this historical background is one of <br />definition. Wh~t is meant when the word <br />! <br />i <br />"permanent" is 4sed1 Courts of 1 aw often <br />, <br />interpret words fin such a manner as to give them <br />! <br /> <br />their common meaning. However, several opinions <br />suggest that thE! word "permanent" does not <br /> <br />, <br />necessari ly mea? forever. For example, the <br />! ' <br />Supreme Court of the State of Washington has held <br />that a decree for alimony is "permanent" in that <br />it continues in,force until a change in <br />circumstances occurs. Bartow v. Bartow, 121 P.2d <br />i <br />962 (Wash. 1942i). In a similar vein, the Supreme <br />Court of the State of Colorado expressed its <br />opinion on themeani ng of the concept: <br /> <br />84 <br />