BOARD00580 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.day )e- pro- , de- n ~te tein nature on he w of fi- .e the rere ,u1d ,1 Lt LS 3 plan s River. range- ~ting agenoy of the CaddoaReservoir (othe~ise known as Jon. Martin Dam project), to store up to 100.000 acre feet of water for conservation purposes. It was explained that the present incompleted oapaoity of the reservoir was 270.000 aore foot of water~'that 170,000' aore feet had been reserved for floOd control; and that the Army Engineers had agreed dllring the war emergency and for the purpose of aiding in the produotion ,of vital foods, to permit storage up to 100,000 aore fe~t of water for irrigation purposes, subjeot to an agree- ment betweep. the. state engineers. of po10rado and Kansas on a schedule of de- liveries. Mr. Patterson explained the benefits of the ..greement and the pro- blems that were involved with respeot to arriving at a sohedule of deliveries. He reviewed the conferenoes and prooeedings which l:La.li. theretofore taken place with respeot to this matter. The meeting recessed at 12,15 p.m. to reconvene at 2,00 p.m. The meeting reoonvened at 2,15 p.m. and _s called to order by the Vice-Chairman, Chris Wallrich. The Director oalled attention to the request made to him by local interests in the Arkansas Valley and in Jaokson County. Colorado, for finanoial assistanoe of the Colorado water Conservation Board in the payment of fees and expenses of local attorneys heretofore engaged to assist in the prose- ou:tion of the case of Colorado v. Kansas and the case of Nebraska v. Wyoming and Colorado, United States, Intervener, in the SlI.preme Court of the United States. The Director presented iL statement ofexpendi tur.es whioh had here- tofore been ]JIIl.de by the St..te of Colcr..do, largely thrGlligh the Colorado Water Conservation Board, in the prosecu:tion of these o..ses. These expenditures inoluded assistanoe of an engineering and legal natwre. He explained that the local attorneys involved were Judge A. W. MoHendrie of Pueblo and Henry C. Vid..l of Denver, special c01l:llsel in the Arkansas Valley case, and George J. Bailey of Walden, Col9rade, speoial oounse1 in the North Pl..tt.case. There was also presented by Miss Pointer the amounts of Dltm.ey which !lAd been paid out by the Arkansu Valley Ditch Assooiation ill the Arkanse.s V..l1ey case. There was also presented to the Boa.rd the amount of DlQll.SY whioh had been paid out by Jacks on CoUl'Ity in the North Platte case. It. we.s further exp1ainei that the Arkansas Valley case li'8.S relilpened and further testimony prepared ani introduced at the insistence of the Attorney General and the Colorado Water Conservation Board" and that such reopening invol'YlJd additioDal services on the part of speoial oounsel who heretofore -had been paid by local interests. Miss Pointer stated that there was now due to Judge A. W. MoHendrie and Henry C. Vidal, special oounsel in the Arkansas Valley ease; the sum of $3.186.00. this amount of money being almost entirely due to additional servioes required by the reopening of the oase at the insistenoe of State offioials who be- lieved that suoh aotion was in the interest of the State of Colorado. It was also eltplained that both the Arkansas Valley case and the North Platte case were now in the hands of the respective Masters appointed by the Court for the making of ttndings and recommended deorees and that fuxther pro- oeedings largely involved the preparation of briefs and arguments before the Supreme Court. The Direotor recGlDlIlended that in view of the large expend,itures whioh had heretofore been made by local interests and because of these oa.ses con- stituting interstate litigation, under the direotion of the ,Attorney General lfith the assis.tance of: the Colorado Water Conserntioa Board, the requests