Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissi oner. <br />Representative of New Mexico <br /> <br />Commissioner. <br />Representative of Nevada. <br /> <br />Commissioner. <br />R6presentative of Utah. <br /> <br />Commis si oner. <br />Representative of Wyoming. <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />Taking up in order: <br /> <br />I The omission of phrase "Where such use and distribution with- <br />in any state may affect the use and dist:'ibution made within <br />another state"; <br />Could the use in any state affect, a:'6rs21y, the use in any <br />other state, except during periods or low water - and, are <br />not the distances of possible d isturbancil so great and the <br />conditions so diverse as to render thb extent and character <br />of such use extremely difficult to determine? <br /> <br />Would not the clause afford an unnecessary opening for con- <br />troversy as to the working of the paot? <br /> <br />II The omission of "and where the Common Law Doctrine of Ripar- <br />ian Rights is not in force": <br />Is not this clause unnecessary? Does not the work appro- <br />priation have the 6ame meaning in all seven states? <br /> <br />III (Note additional uses such as: mining - manufacturing) <br /> <br />IV Why eliminate your sixth? You may ask, must we not agree <br />that any use of water in any state which such state deems <br />beneficial be allowed wi thout (J.\lestion? Might not a "meagre <br />and unprofitable" return from some portions of Arizona or <br />california be acoepted as a relatively satisfactory return <br />in one or more of the mountain states? And, referring to the <br />words "eoonomically feasible" ar€> we not juS tifled In accept- <br />ing as true, in its application by all the states, the state- <br />ment that an uneconomical use cannot be successfully applied <br />or operated - and that therefore no right would acorue? <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />5 <br />