Laserfiche WebLink
<br />138 <br /> <br />138 <br /> <br />MR. CARPEjljTj;;R: . My impression is on the line mads in the last <br /> <br /> <br />statement by Hr. Emerson. The whole problem rests on the amount <br /> <br /> <br />of mter supply. If' there is truth in the statement that there, is <br /> <br /> <br />ample water supply, there fs no need of any acreage limitation. <br /> <br /> <br />On the other hand, if we contend that there be ample water supply <br /> <br /> <br />coming in a particular state and that State's acreage is small <br /> <br /> <br />compared with the water supply of other states, that be amplified <br /> <br /> <br />in proportion of acreage to water supplied. That might result in <br /> <br /> <br />profitable discussion. Just to stand purely on acreage without <br /> <br /> <br />the question of water supply frankly does not appeal to me. The <br /> <br /> <br />objection to acreage limitation in Colorado is that the acreage <br /> <br /> <br />limitation is hopelessly out of proportion to the water supply <br /> <br /> <br />that flows out of the State to other people and amounts to a ,self- <br /> <br /> <br />denial on the part of Colorado. <br /> <br /> <br />HR. HOOVER: In other words, you don't accept any basis of com- <br /> <br /> <br />pact founded on a limitation of acreage. <br />HR. CARPENtER: I am not in a position at this time to accept <br />any such basis. <br />HR. HOOVER: So you do not accept Hr. Emerson's resolution'l <br />HR. CARPENTER: I could not. <br />MR. DAVIS: I take the position that I ~Till take a limitation <br />provided I can have a fair distribution. I 1,ill not take it, how- <br />ever, on the basis of Mr. Davis' figures. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />tit <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />w. <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />