Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i" <br /> <br />Commissi oner , <br />Representative of .New Mexico <br /> <br />Commissioner. <br />Representative of Nevada. <br /> <br />Commissioner. <br />Representative of Utah. <br /> <br />Commissi oner. <br />Representative of Wyoming. <br /> <br />C OMlVlEN1'S <br /> <br />Taking up in order: <br /> <br />I The omission of phrase "Where such use an) distribution with- <br />in any state may affect the use and dist:t'ibution made within <br />another state": <br />Could the use in any state affect, a-:'.ersely; the USe in any <br />other state, except during pertods of low water - and, are <br />not the distances of possible d isturbanci) so great and the <br />conditions .so diverse$.s to render thE; extent and character <br />of such use extremely difficult to determine? <br /> <br />Would not the clause afford an unnecessary opening foi! Con- <br />trov Grsy as to the wor king of the pac t? <br /> <br />II The omission of "and where the Common Law DoctrLne of Ripar- <br />ian Rights is not in force": <br />Is not this clause unnecessary? Does not the work appro- <br />priation have the same meaning in all seven states? <br /> <br />III (Note additio~al uses such as: mining - manufacturing) <br /> <br />IV Why eliminate your sixth? You mgy ask, must we not agree <br />that any use of water in any state which such state deems <br />beneficial be allowed without question? Might not a "meagre <br />and unprofitable" return from some portions of Arizona or <br />California be accepted as a relatively satisfactory return <br />in one or more of the mountain states? And, referring to the <br />words "eoonomically feasible" are we not jus tified in acoept- <br />ing as true, in its application by all the states, the state- <br />ment that an uneconomical use oannot be successfullY applied <br />or opera ted ~ ,and that tberE!fore no right would acorue? <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />5 <br />