Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> v <br /> O <br /> 0 <br /> 13 <br /> O <br /> MR. ARK: I was wondering about Kr. Vidal's statement. <br /> I take it that it contrasted to Kr. Tatets proposal. The m; <br /> Colorado proposal is that each separate situation as to <br /> O <br /> whether the rights in Distriot 67 or the dams and users <br /> would be materially depleted or adversely affected should <br /> be put ` <br /> to a court, to determine that ass a 0 <br /> question of fact. <br /> KR. TIDAL: Fact Ala law. <br /> CHAIBMAX KR KER: May I ask this rather naive <br /> question with reference to any such proceedings: Could <br /> a citizen of Kansas, or a Kansas corporation, which is <br /> atfeoted by the Compact and enjoys certain water rights <br /> or apportionments thereunder--oould such a citizen appear <br /> in the courts of Colorado and would his rights be recog- <br /> nized by the courts of Colorado? <br /> KR. ARK: They could appear there, but they might not <br /> be satisfied; and might they not wind up in the Federal <br /> court because of diversity of citizenship? <br /> MR. VIDAL: If I may be permitted, I have not con- <br /> sidered the question of individual appearance by any <br /> Kansas interest in the natter. The practical situation, <br /> of course, is that District 67 is necessarily and ob- <br /> viously anxious to preserve itself and its rights against <br />