Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001473 <br /> <br />-',) <br /> <br />faJ:'nl land weJ:'e otheJ:'wise impossible. <br /> <br />'l'he decision" fur"ther sug- <br /> <br />gest,ed -[chat if d(~ple-[cion of the river continued, there ,,,ould come <br /> <br />a time when Kansas might justly call for J:'elief. <br /> <br />In 1910 ,the United 8'cates Irriga,ting Company, owner of <br /> <br />several di"cches in wes"tern Kansas, filed suit against cer-cain <br /> <br />Colorado water users (1:he GJ:'aham Di,tch Company) in Federal ))is- <br /> <br />trict Cour't for Colorado in an effm:'t to obtain a priori"cy as <br /> <br />against the priority of the defendan"ts regardless of the s'cate <br /> <br />line. This case ,vas settled by con"crac"t in 1916 by the :Colorado <br />" I <br />, <br />water users agreeing 'to recognize priorities of date Au~ust 27, <br /> <br />1910 and making subs'tan'cial payment to the Kansas company. <br /> <br />After similar suits were filed in 1916 and a few years <br /> <br />lat;e): by ano'che:c Kansas dit;ch company in the same cour"t against <br /> <br />,the same Colorado wa'ter users, the" Stat.e of Colorado, who believed <br /> <br />that the issues were really matters between states, attempted to <br /> <br />settle the dispute by inters'tate compac"c.3 Representatives of <br /> <br />the states met and by 1925 had proposed a compact providing that <br /> <br />]1 ' 'tl P t' , 4f <br />Kansas COU,( construc~ a reservo~r on -1e urga o~re R~ver or <br /> <br />storage of surplus waters for benefi"t of Kansas; Colorado would <br /> <br />provide all necessary land. The agreemen't me'c disfavor with both <br /> <br />3Colm:ado had Cllready successfully negotiated compacts on the <br />Colorado River and the Sou'th Pla'c"te River. <br /> <br />tl''11118 mou"th of "chis t::cihtJt:a:cy of the J.~rkansas Hive:c i.s a"t the up- <br />stream end of John l1artin Reservoir. <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />ii':.J2. <br />