Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Court in 1917 and amended in 1923 by a Kansas ditch company <br /> <br /> <br />which had not been a party to the 1916 settlement. <br /> <br /> <br />From 1921 to 1923 an effort was made to settle the inter- <br /> <br /> <br />state controversy through the medium of a compact. Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br />duly appointed by both States met and negotiated such a compact <br /> <br /> <br />but their work failed to receive the approval of either State. <br /> <br /> <br />In 1928 the State of Colorado instituted suit in the <br /> <br /> <br />Supreme Court of the United States against the State of Kansas for <br /> <br /> <br />the purpose of requiring Kansas to enforce upon its water users the <br /> <br /> <br />provisions of the Supreme Court's 1907 decree, and to enjoin <br /> <br /> <br />further litigation by her agents against appropriators in Colorado. <br /> <br /> <br />Kansas, by counterclaim, asserted that Colorado water uses had <br /> <br /> <br />increased to the substantial injury of Kansas since the 1907 decision <br /> <br /> <br />and requested a judicial apportionment of the stream flow between the <br /> <br /> <br />two States. Voluminous testimony covering a period of nearly ten <br /> <br /> <br />years was taken in this; second interstate suit and reported upon <br /> <br /> <br />by a Special Master appointed by the Court. <br /> <br /> <br />During the pendency of the Colorado v. Kansas case, and <br /> <br /> <br />at a time when Federal authorization for the Caddoa Reservoir <br /> <br /> <br />Project was being urged, a Stipulation dated December 18, 1933 was <br /> <br /> <br />entered into by the two States. In this Stipulation both States <br /> <br /> <br />agreed to use their influence to obtain the construction of the <br /> <br /> <br />Caddoa Project and agreed to maintain the status quo of the use of <br /> <br /> <br />the waters of the Arkansas River by specifying an allocation of <br /> <br /> <br />reservoir water between the two States. This Stipulation was later <br /> <br /> <br />introduced in evidence as a joint exhibit in the Colorado v. Kansas <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />