Bill Potts wrote: >The statement in your subject line draws an unwarranted conclusion. >All you can conclude from the Washington Post article is that the >Washington Post uses cubic feet.
You are correct. My statement is unsupported by the reference. Thanks for pointing that out. However, I had previously searched the Army Corps of Engineers website. Their press release on this topic uses cubic feet only. www.nwd.usace.army.mil/pa/news-rls/mrr/MORvrReduceFlowsNwsRls-05Aug03.pdf
