Laserfiche WebLink
<br />&uit but it received no recognition in the Court'~ ultimate <br /> <br />judgment. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court 's Opinion in the ~ase of State of <br />Colorado v, State of K~ (320 U, S, 383) was delivered on <br />December 6, 1943. The Court granted the injunction sought by <br /> <br />Colorado but rejected the Special Master'$ finding a and recommenda- <br /> <br />tions in declining to decree other relief for which Colorado had <br /> <br />asked and Kansas had counter-claimed. In thus disposing of the <br /> <br />suit the Supreme Court expressed its philosophy and advice for the <br /> <br />guidanc-e of the litigants in the following words: <br /> <br />"The reason for judicial caution in adjudicating the <br />relative rights of states in such cases is that, while we <br />have jurisdiction of such disputes, they involve the interests <br />of quasi-sovereigns, present complicated and delicate <br />questions, and, due to the possibility of future change of <br />conditions, necessitate expert administration rather than <br />judicial imposition of a hard and fast rule, Such con- <br />troversies may appropriately be composed by negotiation <br />and agreement, pursuant to the compact clause of the <br />Federal constitution. We say of this case, as the court <br />has said of interstate differences of like nature, that such <br />mutual accomodation and agreement si;ould if possible, be <br />the medium of settlement, instead of invocation of our <br />adjudicatory power," <br /> <br />...$... <br /> <br /> <br />That admonition from the Supreme Court led to the compact <br /> <br />negotiations covered by this report. <br /> <br />In the intervening years, 1943-1947, the John Martirn (Caddoa) <br /> <br />Project, which is described more fully in Section 5 of this report, <br /> <br />reached a stage of partial completion which permitted the storage of <br /> <br />water for irrigation use up to a volu~e of 100,000 acre-feet. Impound- <br /> <br />ment and release of this water was governed by va,rious interim <br /> <br />operating agreements between State officials. The first of these <br /> <br />interim agreements (1943) adopted the formula for allocation specified <br />