My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 09/13,14,15,16,17/1948
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Transcripts of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 09/13,14,15,16,17/1948
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/25/2014 4:08:29 PM
Creation date
11/18/2014 1:16:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Fifteenth Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 09/13,14,15,16,17/1948 Colorado Springs, Co.
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Author
Commissioners
Title
Fifteenth Meeting of the Arkansas River Compact Commissions 09/13,14,15,16,17/1948 Colorado Springs, Co.
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1 <br /> xl <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 19 <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> o. <br /> resources department of Kansas, and he has been occupied <br /> some on these matters before, and if the commission does m' <br /> not object to one not a commissioner I would like to hear <br /> 0 <br /> from Mr. Noe. <br /> x7 <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: Certainly, we will be glad to hear <br /> from Kr. Noe in his own right. We have afforded the <br /> privilege to Judge Stone and others to participate in <br /> our proceedings, and Mr. Noe is generally pretty silent, <br /> as Secretary, but he can shed that role and speak his <br /> legal opinion, if he wishes. <br /> SECRETARY NOE: Of course, I am not familiar with what <br /> the Colorado courts have held or might hold on the subject, <br /> but the thought occurs to me that the Kansas Supreme <br /> Court in considering the validity and constitutionality <br /> of the 1929 Water Conservation Act, which provided for a <br /> composite court of three judges, as I remember it, and <br /> extended the boundaries of their jurisdictional districts <br /> by doing so, held that it was an invalid and uncon- <br /> stitutional act because the legislature could not extend <br /> the jurisdictional boundaries of those courts. <br /> if that is true, I am wondering if the two states <br /> through acts of their legislatures and approval of the <br /> Congress could empower the Colorado courts to consider <br /> matters which might be outside the jurisdiction of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.