Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> v <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 21 <br /> of 60-40; an application for transfer is made, and we say <br /> that that will result in diminution of the total supply, <br /> but the figure 60-40 preserves what will be supplied to 0 <br /> 0 <br /> Kansas. What objection is there to the requiring of <br /> notice to be given to the Compact Administration as pro- <br /> vided by the law of Colorado, and give them an opportunity <br /> to be heard in the proceedings to show that such an appli- <br /> cation if granted would deplete the supply available for <br /> use or the usable quantity. <br /> MR. KNAPP: What would the situation be if such notice <br /> were given and Kansas people appeared in the Colorado court <br /> and obj.eoted to that transfer, and notwithstanding the <br /> objection that the Colorado court approved the transfer <br /> over the objection of Kansas? What further recourse would <br /> Kansas have in the matter? <br /> MR. VIDAL: You have, of course, your ordinary pro- <br /> cedure of litigation. Courts do make mistakes. The <br /> prooeedings go from the district to the Supreme court. <br /> Of course it can be done-- <br /> MR. KNAPP: That would be to the Supreme court of <br /> Colorado. <br /> MR. VIDAL: Of Colorado, first. Now, I do not see <br /> any reason why if Kansas is relying on the rights given <br />