Laserfiche WebLink
<br />states and was never submitted to either legislature. <br /> <br />~ <br />~ Finally in 1928, Colorado took action against Kansas in <br />C'\l <br />C'\l the United States Supreme Court. The compact negotiations had <br /> <br />I...~:.i <br /> <br />u <br /> <br />failed and rights of Colorado water users needed protection <br /> <br />against additional suits by Kansas water users and by having its <br /> <br />water rights confirmed. Furthermore, Colorado believed that the <br /> <br />quantity of usable water in Kansas had not diminished since the <br /> <br />Decision of 1907. Many extended hearings were held, covering <br /> <br />nearly a ten-year period, which resulted in accumulation of a mass <br /> <br />of evidence. <br /> <br />While the Colorado vs. Kansas case was pending in the <br /> <br />Supreme Court, Kansas and Colorado entered into an agreement <br /> <br />called the Stipulation of 1933, which provided that both states <br /> <br />use their influence in Congress to obtain construction of a dual- <br /> <br />purpose reservoir by the United States, and agree to the allocation <br /> <br />of water stored (6~/o for Colorado and 4~/o for Kansas). The res- <br /> <br />ervoir operation would be administered by the United States and <br /> <br />would not disturb the status quo of diversions of water from the <br /> <br />Arkansas River. This agreement led to Congressional authorization <br /> <br />in 1936 for construction of John Martin Dam and Reservoir. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Colorado vs. <br /> <br />Kansas in 1943 was in favor of Colorado and affirmed its previous <br /> <br />-4- <br />