Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> 11 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> c <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> early as 1902. The existence of that controversy was well �( <br /> recognized by those who were interested in and sponsored the m! <br /> authorization of the then called Caddoa Reservoir Project . <br /> 0 <br /> In 1933 during the pendency of a suit in the Supreme <br /> Court a stipulation was entered into between the States of <br /> m <br /> Colorado and Kansas <br /> lea stipulation which is a setter of <br /> record and which therefore I see no necessity for reading in <br /> fnll, the purpose of which was to remove obstacles resulting <br /> from the interstate controversy from the path of legislative <br /> progress in the authorization for the construction of the <br /> Caddoa project. <br /> In other words, the states at that time expressed a <br /> joint conclusion that they were willing to put aside for the <br /> time being their controversy, feeling that the construction <br /> of the project would in itself go a long ways towards helping <br /> to resolve their difficulties. In the subsequent legislation, <br /> the Flood Control Act of 1936, the existence of that controversy <br /> was clearly recognized. The Flood Control Act of 1938 in ef- <br /> feet legislated into law the so-called 308 report on the <br /> Arkansas River. The 308 report contains a number of references <br /> to the interstate controversy, of which I will cite one, al- <br /> though there are numerous others. <br /> In paragraph 88 of the District Engineer's report he states: <br /> 'The problem confronting irrigation interests in <br />