Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ll" <br />c.:> <br />N <br />N <br />c.) <br />o <br /> <br />decision. The Court declined to apportion the waters of the river <br /> <br />or discuss the division of benefits from John Martin Reservoir, <br /> <br />but strongly suggested that the only way to settle such controversy <br /> <br />was by interstate compact. <br /> <br />Arkansas River Compact Has No Provisions for a Recreation Pool <br /> <br />The Arkansas River Compact was negotiated from 1945-1948 <br /> <br />by commissions from both states with participation from a United <br /> <br />states representative, ratified by both state legislatures and <br /> <br />approved by Congress in 1949 for the purposes of settling existing <br /> <br />disputes and removing causes for future controversy and equitably <br /> <br />dividing and apportioning the waters of the river and the benefits <br /> <br />arising from John Martin Reservoir. It provided for the Arkansas <br /> <br />River Compact Administration, composed of two irrigators from <br /> <br />each state, the Kansas State Engineer and the Director of the <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, to meet regularly and determine <br /> <br />gaging necessary, investigate violations of the Compact provisions, <br /> <br />adopt and revoke Rules and Regulations and prescribe procedures <br /> <br />for the administration of the Compact. <br /> <br />The compact commission was requested to allocate 10,000 <br /> <br />acre-feet of storage for recreation purposes by the Federal Fish <br /> <br />and Wildlife Service, but it wasn't given much consideration. <br /> <br />Irrigators in both Kansas and Colorado thought it would impair <br /> <br />-5- <br />