Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> • 16 0 <br /> think that we could safely rely on the consideration that <br /> the Colorado courts would give it. m <br /> Commenting on Mr. Arm' s observation about going into 0 <br /> the federal court by a Kansas corporation, I do not <br /> remember offhand any instance in which a transfer Of <br /> water rights handled under the Colorado statute as it is <br /> now and as it was before, was removed to the Federal court <br /> on the ground of diversity of citizenship. <br /> KR. ARM: Surely could be if it involved over $2,000. <br /> MR. TIDAL: Let us assume a transfer by a Meese <br /> ditch--I use that only for illustration and because it <br /> is the earliest priority of Water District 67--that re- <br /> quires a notice to all the ditches affected, and I believe <br /> under this Compact we can- count on honest administration. <br /> It would not require any notice, however, to any Kansas <br /> ditches, specifically. Notice is served actually and <br /> by publication. But under out statute we 'would not re- <br /> quire notice to any particular Unitas water user. <br /> But I believe that the Administration, or as pro- <br /> vided in our statute, any affected user, could come into <br /> the proceeding. Our patute is that broad, I think. <br /> And I think too that the provisions of the Compact would <br /> be controlling. An anomaly of the legal procedure is <br /> that a party claiming injury does not have the burden of <br />