WSP04404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OC1235 ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT 17 TEXT OF RESOLUTION .ADoPTED BY EXECUTIVE OOMMITTEE OF "THE ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION AT PuEBLO, COLO., DECEMBER 3. 1948 Be it resolved Qy the EaJecutive Oommittee of the Arkansas VaUey Ditch .As80:' ciation in meeting aS8embled at 'PuebZo, Golo., this sa day of Deoomber 1948, That the proposed compact between the States of Colorado and Kansas, for the distribution of water from John Martin Reservoir project, as the same is -set out In the mimeographed draft thereof of date November 10, 1948,. be and the same is hereby approved, provided: (a) Paragraph F of article V is subject to such revisions as may'be unan- imouslyagreed to by the Colorado Compact Commissioners. (b) That the word "materially" be inserted on page 5 of said draft, before the word Cldepleted" in the third line from the bottom of paragraph D of article IV thereof. (0) That the words Cland reservoirs" be inserted on page 7 of said draft, after the word Hditches" in the second line from the bottom of paragraph D of article V thereof,; Be it further Resol'IJeil, That the Colorado members of said Commission be and they are hereby requested to sign said compact, after the editing of paragraph F of Q.rticle V, and the insertion of the words "materially" and "and reservoirs," as herein- above set forth; to the end that said compact may be submitted for ratification at the next session of the legislatures of the States of Colorado and Kansas, and thereafter to the Congress of the United States. VENA POINTER, Seoretary. NEOESSITY FOR AN ARKANSAS RIVER COMPAC11' HISTORIOAL DATA The Arkansas River flows from above Leadville to the Kansas line, a distance of 820 miles, through Leadville, SaUda, Canon City, Florence, Pueblo, Manzanola, Rocky Ford, La Junta, Las Animas, Lamar, and Holly, and was the site of some of the earliest irrigation developments in Colorado. The average annual flow, originating in Colorado, without diversions, is about 1,100,000 acre-feet. Con> siderable irrigation from the river has also developed in western Kansas as far east as Garden Oi ty. . For many years prior to 1901, Kansas claimed that it was being deprived by Colorado of its rightful share of the river, and in 1901 Kansas brought suit (206 U. S. 46) against Colorado in the United States Supreme Court, asking relief ,for alleged injury. Decision was rendered in 1907 in favor of Colorado, recog- nizing the basic principle of equitable division of the benefits of an interstate stream and holding that as of 1907 COlorado had no extended its right of develop- ment or its use of the water to a point that Kansas had a right of action, but suggested' that later development and use might give Kansas grounds fo'r relief. In 1910 litigation again developed when the United States Irrigating Co., as owner of several ditches in western Kansas, sued Colorado water users in tbe United States D,istrict Court for Colorado in an effort to establish priorities against Colorado water users, disregarding the State line. The Colorado water users settled this case by making certain substantial payments. Controversy stlll continued, however, and in 1916, the Finney County Water Users Association (not a party to the 1910 suit, but a water user in Kansas)' brought suit in the United States District Court for Colorado against the same Colorado users and for the same purpose as the 1910 suit, and again a few years later, brought another suit against the Colorado water users for the same purpose. FinallY, in 1928, the State of Colorado, in order to,protect its own citizens and water users and to put an end to further such suits, took action in the United States Supreme Court against the State of Kansas and the Finney County Water Users Association. After many and extended hearings and the _accumulation of an immense mass of evidence, the United States Supreme Court (320 U. S. 883) on December 6, 1943, affirmed its previous decision and held that Kansas, up to that time, had not established any claim for relief and enjoined further private litigation, but declined to apportion the water of the river or even dis- cuss the divlsion of the benefits of John Martin Reservoir, and very strongly suggested and recommended that the only proller way to determine such contro- veries was by interstate negotiations under the compact provision of the Con- stitution of the United States. Incidentally, an attempt had been made in 1923 and 1924 to make a compact, but to no avail. ,'ff.';?""t~';L '" 1#"1 .';':I~~I~ir ;~;:~~::i > ;':J,.,e ;:~tli'l~ i ,k;{~";;li;";:'#; .\ >i .:.;:~;i'~ ~J;( ,.i<) . . " D;....:, \ . . ;;'::'}:;;;,' '. ;;;':.:.~;~"''; , ;:::'\; ::..... ......,... . .' ii":';;',,> ;/:'., ..:t:; :::;:;((Z';.:: ..;~;;;i~i:;;';;':!",..':::: ':';"~..:'< ('. ..t"....... '.. '. ...)< \.;.,.... " .;. . .;,.../'..;'.:;"'t .::)..:.:<..;.....;./i:::,'.;'}. . ..:c:, '.>.i "..;: J :.<t',;,..:, :;";:;:J~t.~:;' ....'., ".:: ;';</',,'''''. ;,'r}.}!~~~ " ......;;... ...., i> :'''':: ;% ;l .:.:.:-~~t:t/ "" ;; .' ......i~J;:l. ..:""., .,j:.\;..:~<;.:::... ':.;:t;1;/c;, .... ~::;:;;:~ .::~t<,1F.~;;..::;.~~.:.,B" ~'.~..:: 'j) .;;>;:.{::\.~.:.;'.:~: ...:.,.... ,,,: ':2'> .X .~.: .......:. .>.};:{~~tiii~ ..:;.jlr;::,:.~;:\i:i}, >.:;:.. r:;/ >: ./> :'; "'.'. .c..,':": :',. ';"':>", ~}':,<' i), :<? :'::>~tt.;:./,'i" ' '. ..:.;'; 'c.' I:~;:'~ : ,,'::;' "If,:,",," ')':)':; "kf'~:",,'::!: /\:","/';:'L :';) '.r"';:,< "'7",), ; Ii t;j ~'i; .... ":"'.'{':',.; 'ct.:,).~./;.;. ,.:'.it;.: ,...... .... ""'/,'5:.; ......,x:;:J;;.,......;< .<,d?::;~' ',..;';. ,'{';.., \,;> :;', . ." '. .... ::~i:.'. ". . . .c' c.' .....'....>j . . ,... L,;