Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- . .~. <br /> <br />C. H.l:N"T AND.l:II_ON <br />CL...RI!NCI: L. BARTHOLIC <br />E. B. EVAN_ <br />SAMUEL L f'AIRUMIllI <br />ROBERT L. GI!E: <br />---BT:-GEORC,E:-GORDON <br />J. RA......V H"'''RI. <br />JAME_ S. HIIND.l:JI.ON <br />BARB...RA LEI! <br />DONALD H. MI!YIER <br /> <br />mIle ~tate of QIolornbo ::?~;::.K~%:~:~Ai~R <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW ....:.~:;?j;ln...NT...TTo"NI:'t"......I:II...1. <br />OFF~CE Of' THE "iTORNEY GEHE.R....l.. A..,:)"", '"/' <br />."y "::0 -... <br />DENVER ~!:':l"'" ,.." ,- <br />'" o~ OJ <br />......... ~ .... I""').~ .0> <br />~ "...-:;,-. ,~ <br />MAY "" 0"'" "".....~. <br />3 = ;; i! ::;:- 7' 0) <br />c""'" . 2: "' '(I) <br />1943 ~ ~1"l1~ co <br />cQ:O,..... <0 <br />~. - ~ <br />8fSll1l'tnY' <br /> <br />""~, <br /> <br />- <br />~~- <br /> <br />,/ <br />./ <br /> <br />--=&"I~';;~~~~~...- - <br /> <br />H. LAWRENCE HINKLEY <br />DII:..UTT ATTO"NII:Y ClII:".""'1. <br /> <br />., <br />.' <br /> <br />DUKE W. DUNBAR <br />F.UT "'..'.,....11'1" ....,.TO..MII:T GlllIlI::""'1... <br /> <br />N <br />~ <br />~ <br />-.I <br /> <br />. .~_. <br /> <br /> <br />.. ..-~ <br />. ;';..-. '-~ ~ . <br /> <br />_,_0... <br />'L::~~~' : . <br />'..::~~~~~;:-. <br /> <br />~;~i~~:..: <br />.~~*?it~Eon. M. C. Hinderlider <br />~.p<. <br />.~~ State Engineer <br />-/~~~ State Capitol Building <br />:,,~;~~-Denver. Colorado <br />.._~:;~~;;1:'.:::.. - . <br />. --:-~4.1f Dear Mr. Hinderliderl <br />.._~ '__~oI'_ <br />-~~c.:~}Ai.'-::In yoor letter of' April 28th you propound to me sever...l ques- <br />. .~ -';-.;:::icTtions involving the administration of the Arkansas River. <br /> <br />_ --::~:wrt:\ Bef'ore taking up your specif'ic questions I think it would be <br />~. .::~"f;g well to review brief'ly the cont.roversy betwe~n the St~te~ of' ?olo:ado <br />, ;r:~f. and Kansas over the waters of' tne Arkansa. River. as ~t ~s this dispute <br />- '1.:J;:;r;~rwhich cause. much of' the present difficulty in the administration of the <br />...':.@;:~:;;.stream in Colorado. The interstate controversy has now existed for .ome <br />,'-:';FJ";"jf'i'orty-two years. After the original suit brought by Kansas in the United <br />"';;rt;~ States Suprll!lle Court was dismi.sed in 1907 (See Kan.as v. Colorado. 206 <br />?:{\~~u. s. 46) individual Kans.... water u.ers brought action in the United <br />'$:,"fB State. District Court f'or the Di strict of' Colorado for the purnose of es- <br />.%:tj tablishing interstate priori ties. In 1916 these private ca.e." were set- <br />':';0';:.,( tIed with all the principal Kan.as ditches but one. which later brought <br />:~:~~ two other suits in the Federal Court. In 1928 Color...do filed .ui t in the <br />:2 :~L. Uni ted States Supreme Court to enjoin the further pro.ecuti",,- of the.e <br />-:'..../ oases. Kansas by way of' eross-bill asked f'or an equitable apportiomaent <br />::<( of the water. of' the stream between the two states. In 1933. while te.- <br />,~::~'~:: timony ms .till being taken in this last cnse bef'ore a Commi.sioner. the <br />. - -: opportunity ms pre.ented to .ecure the construction of the Caddoa Re.er- <br />.. '.. voir by the Corps of' Engineers without any expense to the states ot" their <br />..' water users. On December 18. 1933 the two s tate. entered into a stinula- <br />-':..'02' tion in which they agreed to u.e their j oint efforts to secure the c~- <br />"",-, struction of' Caddoa Dron and Re.ervoir. You are familiar with this Stipu- <br />, r:':- lation and such provisions a. ...re pertinent will be mentioned later in <br />__' this opinion. The Stipulation was si goed by the Governors. the Attorneys <br />. .c..... General. the State Engineer.. and the special counsel for the two state.. <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />L'-. <br />