Laserfiche WebLink
<br />may adopt priority of utilization or equitable division, <br /> <br />as it may see fit. As Mr. En~rson points out, the first <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />question is 1ihether we can agree to a division of the states <br /> <br />into t,TO groups 1.n th an equitable apportionment of 1,rater <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />between the groups. <br /> <br />!-ill. S. B. DAVIS: After,all, that amounts, to some extent, <br /> <br />only to avoiding a certain amount of difficulty. Finally <br /> <br />and lastly there must be a definite allocation as among the <br /> <br />individual states rather than among the groups. All that I <br /> <br />see in the group idea is that we shove off to the future <br /> <br />t.hat much responsibility. For my own part I would much rather, <br /> <br /> <br />if it is possible to do it, make a definite allocation of <br /> <br />1,ater to each one of the states and only if that becomes <br /> <br />impossible would I say that it was wise to start in on a group <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />basis. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I'lli. ENGRSON: I agree Hith Judge Davis on that. You get <br /> <br />your fundamental consideration of whether or not allocation <br /> <br />is possib~e, take it eithor, as you may, definitely for each <br /> <br />state or bet,reen the tHO eroups. Of course, if all seven <br /> <br />states and the Unitod States can agree at this time and each <br /> <br />oan be assured that his state had proper protection, it would <br /> <br />be very desirable to get it right do,m to the ste,te, individual <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />states; but tho question is, can it como that far? As I <br /> <br />understand it Mr. Norviel's form of pact proposes no definite <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />allocation at this time. I can't conceive, from the lvyoming <br /> <br />standpoint, of any form based upon that as a premise that we <br /> <br />can sign. <br /> <br />llt~S.F. <br />33 <br /> <br />41 <br /> <br />, <br />