Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> Q n <br /> 6 0 <br /> we have amended the transfer statute time and again. In <br /> the illustration I gave, the Supreme Court ruled repeatedly <br /> that they oould not consider that abandonment---which was Z <br /> idiotic, but they ruled that way--and the statute was amended <br /> to give the court jurisdiction to consider abandonment. <br /> I do not see why we could not provide that in a �I <br /> proceeding for transfer notice should not be .given to the <br /> Administration, and I do not see how else it could be <br /> given. We could not provide that we skip all the Kansas <br /> ditches. <br /> MR. ARM: No, that is not praotioal. <br /> MR. VIDAL: That is the converse of the proposition <br /> ekeept the Colorado court would require notice to all of <br /> the ditches in 67 and all of the ditches in l7. <br /> MR. ARN: Of course, we started out in the discussion <br /> of this matter with this premise, that there could not be <br /> any transfer and there is never any requested unless <br /> everybody was agreeable to it. I mean basically that is <br /> the premise, because if there are any rights affected the <br /> transfer would not be made anyway. I think that is the <br /> idea we had in the proposition--- <br /> CHAIRMAN KRAMER: I did not hear that last. <br /> MR. ARK: I say, if that is the situation, it would <br />