Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> v <br /> 30 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 22 0 <br /> to it under the law of Colorado—that is, under this <br /> rn <br /> Compact--it would not have the right to take that action <br /> of the Supreme Court of Colorado to the Supreme Court of 0 <br /> Kansas for review. <br /> KR. IRELAND: The subject matter of the action is N <br /> all in Colorado, or the location is all in Colorado, what <br /> *Mold be the difference if a Kansas resident owned the <br /> water right up in Colorado, he would be entitled to his <br /> notice. We are talking about the water in Caddoa Reser- <br /> voir, we are talking about the water at Stateline, it is <br /> all water in Colorado within the jurisdiction of the <br /> district court under our statute. We are not talking <br /> about water in Kansas. <br /> • <br /> KR. KNAPP: Nevertheless, if this resulted in a <br /> ' diminution at the Stateline of the availability of water <br /> in Kansas, then it is not so much a case of a citizen <br /> of £aneas in an ordinary matter-- <br /> MR. IRELAND: It is something that took place and <br /> affected the water in Colorado. <br /> MR. TATE: I question the jurisdiction of the Colo- <br /> rado court to pass upon the question of what effect might <br /> result below the Stateline, outside the State of Colorado. <br /> MR. VIDAL: Under this Compact, if it is given juris- <br />