Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 24 m <br /> 0 <br /> be in Colorado or Kansas. <br /> Of course, if the decree of such a court were still <br /> subject to controversy, the legal procedure would have to 0 <br /> return to its natural course, and perhaps end up in the <br /> Federal oourt. But at least this would empower the local <br /> district court to cover a broad field of jurisdiction, <br /> and insure giving the Kansas interests a day in court. <br /> Whether that day in court would serve its purpose or not <br /> is not for me to say. <br /> It strikes ae that the issue here, very plainly, is <br /> that Kansas is reluctant to have its interests in the <br /> transfers of water rights you might say unilaterally <br /> determined in the courts of Colorado. I can appreciate <br /> that concern on the part of Kansas. However, on Colo- <br /> radots side is the position that they are just as reluo- <br /> taut, and perhaps more so, to make what ordinarily would <br /> be routine local proceedings of transfer in its court <br /> always subject to the veto of a Kansas citizen. Which <br /> of this is a paramount interest is not for me to say, but <br /> I think that is Colorado' s position, that they normally <br /> would handle the natter, in the absence of a compact, <br /> within their own court, and they are reluctant in effeot <br /> to give Kansas a veto power in that proceeding. <br /> Now that perhaps is putting it rather crudely, but <br /> that is what I think it amounts to, and is what I have <br />