Laserfiche WebLink
200 <br /> O <br /> 0 <br /> D' <br /> -i' <br /> exospt for possibly a future situation in which ocmputati -4 <br /> of water supplies in the Arkansas River in Colorado would <br /> be made a fast or to take into consideration imported waters <br /> which is, to a certain extent, the case at present, my view <br /> was that there was not anything with which this Com sistic < <br /> omuld deal in the making of the ova <br /> ,pa11t between Colored* ant <br /> Isaias over the waters of the Arkansas River. <br /> RSAS maiRRt i am aware of the restriott <br /> in the Colorado River Compact to which you refer and, of <br /> course, that precludes the division with gansas of any wager <br /> which may be diverted from the Colorado Basin in the State of <br /> Coles,, and in that sense I can understand your conclusion <br /> that there is no legal ,jurisdiction over that water in so <br /> tar as an interstate compact over the division of water. le <br /> concerned, But, as a physioa3l fact, con jeetural though it <br /> may be, shouldn't our compact envision that possibility of <br /> import of water in so far as it will attest the 'physlo -- <br /> ties of the problem* not with a view to dividing that watts* <br /> theoretically but taking cognisance of the physical effects <br /> on stream flow resulting from what is legally possible? In <br /> other words, I draw a distinotion in my mind between an <br /> adjudioatlon, if you please, between the states, which would <br /> certainly be illegal as between Colorado and Kansas, of i*.. <br /> ported water, and I take it that your conclusion goes to that <br /> j tut. Bu` there le a further tonstderstien if thm 4uastien <br />