Laserfiche WebLink
<br />is <br />foremost the question of whether or not there can be a de- <br /> <br />finite, allocation of water as between the several states,. <br /> <br />or as between certain divisions that have been suggested. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />Now ther$ is something basic, to my mind. As far as I have <br />studied the position in HYOlning there must be a definite <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />allocation at this time if we subscribe to a compact so the <br /> <br />question of allocation might be taken as one of the basic <br /> <br />questions we must decide. Allied with that is whether or ndt,- <br /> <br />MR. CALDWELL: May I ask a question th'ore? <br /> <br />MR. EMERSOil: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. CAWWELL: Do I understand that allocation would <br /> <br />reach to the allocation between the states as well as between <br /> <br />the basins? <br /> <br />l-ffi. EHERSO(.1; Not. necessarily. Not necessarily, n()~ <br /> <br /> <br />As far as I have thought, for instance, this qQestion of the <br /> <br /> <br />theory. of allocation between an upper and lower division is <br /> <br /> <br />rather appealing, leaving the settlement between the states <br /> <br /> <br />in..the t.wo divisions to be ,rorked out lat8r between the states <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4J, <br /> <br />aff8cted themselves. <br /> <br />Iffi. $CRUGH,\M: I see no reason why ,Ie should not agree <br /> <br />upon some reasonable allocation between the upper and. lower <br /> <br />division. <br /> <br />MR. NORVIEL.; By allocation you mean quantity of water? <br />MR. El1ERSON: It might mean quantity of water or an , <br />acre/1.ge. The ,lay I see it nO',r, the only practical way is . <br /> <br />upon quantity of water,-_volumes of water. <br />. , <br /> <br />Then I would say another vital question that we need <br /> <br />to consider is to what extent federal control should be <br /> <br />3$ <br /> <br />Ilth-S.F.-30 3$ <br />