Laserfiche WebLink
<br />''. ~:" <br /> <br />. .--~: " - ~ <br /> <br />-~~ <br />e..,,'l <br />~ <br />e.il <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br />THE OPINION <br /> <br />2. Rei Depletions ~n Colorado (Cont'd) <br />could not have taken place to the extent claimed. and pointed out that the <br /> <br />critical matter is the amount of divertible flow at times when water is most <br /> <br />neede'd for irrigation, and therefore such calculations of average annual <br /> <br />flow inc luding floods are not helpful in asoertaining the dependable supply <br /> <br />of water usable far irrigation. More important, with respeot to the prob- <br /> <br />lems now illlder consideration, the Court pointed out tl1l.t records of colora- <br /> <br />do's ditch diversions and exhibits showing the divertible and usable State- <br /> <br />line flow, rebut such an inorease, in depletions by Colorado, as Kansas <br /> <br />asserts. <br /> <br />3. Rei The Caddoa Project. <br /> <br />The Opiniol1 makes no mention of the Caddou projeot, nor of the <br /> <br />agreement between the tv<o States, entered in 1933, concerning its construe- <br /> <br />tion by the United States and its operation in behalf of irrigation until <br /> <br />suoh time as the then pending case of Colorado, v. Kansas shall have been <br /> <br />deoided by the United States Supreme Court. While the existenoe of the Cad- <br /> <br />doa projeot must be taken into aCcOilllt. the said agreement of 1933 is now <br /> <br />ineffective, and herein is ignored. <br /> <br />Regarding the Caddo a project, the oontentions of both States, <br /> <br />though not discussed as such in the Opinion, are of interest in connection <br /> <br />with the Court's findings regarding reservoirs in general. <br /> <br />Colorado's position, briefly stated, was that its construotion, <br /> <br />jointly promoted by Kansas, does not consti tute an injury. nor its opera- <br /> <br />tion-a-threateneduin,jUl'y--to- Kansasl- and_that_i,ts_authorized _purposes for_ ~_~ ___ <br />