Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />::::l <br />') <br />C) <br />CJ! <br /><Xl <br />~ <br /> <br />states and was never submitted to either legislature. <br /> <br />Pinally in 1928, Colorado took action against Kansas in <br /> <br />the United States Supreme Court. The compact negotiations had <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 />. <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, _(60'/o_for_ ,Color,ado_ ,and <1-,0'/0_ for Kans,asJ . 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 />o <br /> <br />Kansas in 1943 was in favor of Colorado and affirmed its previous <br /> <br />-4- <br />