WSP04705

• File Number: 8143.600.30A
• Description: John Martin Reservoir - Other Studies
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 1/1/1950
• Title: Administration of Caddoa Reservoir - 1950 -- Part 1 of 4
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

_~~_u___~~

Hon. ~l. C. llinderli der

-2-

l1e.y 3. 1943

.::)

N
'A
I-
~

.Among other things the stipulation provided that it should not
be filed in the pending United States Supreme Court case "until the oon-
struction of said dam e.nd reservoir by the United States Government shall
be assured." In Deoember, 1941, it appenring that this condition had
been met, counsel for the two ste.tes offered the stipulation in evidenoe
as a joint exhibit. Later, because cf conditions brought on by the war,
it was found impossible to secure the necesse.ry flood relee.se gates e.nd
hence final completion he.s been delayed until the gates are obtainable.

I

In the winter of 1943 some water was stored as a convenience
to the const~cting cactre.ctor. As I underste.nd it. this was water which
would not he.ve been used in either state for irri gation. The release of
this water ~s the subject of several conferences betvreen the two state
engineers and interested water users. In l1e.rch, the Corps of Engineers
e.greed to permit the storage of e.pproximately 100,000 e.cre-feet of water
for irrige.tion uses in order to further the program. oe.lling for the gree.t-
est possible production of e.gricu1ture.l crops during the present war emer-
gency. In granting this permission the Corps of Engineers imposes e.s a
condi tion thereto the making of an agreement between the two state engineers
as to as chedule for the release of such water.

In the case of Colorado v. Kansas. Colorado has consistently taken
the position that the stipulo.tion of 1933 is valid and binding e.nd that if
a decree is en.tered in substantial conformity with the stipulation neither
party may object. Kansas, on the other hand, in its brief and argument to
the l1aster appointed by the Supreme Court has recently contended that the
1933 Stipulation is merely e.n interim aifeement to gove= the administra-
tion" of the stream during the penden~y of the li~ib~~ion and is not a bind-
ing agreement as to any permanent allocation of' \W.-:er.

We in COlorado must recognize that our neighbo:1ng sta~es are
enti tIed to aD. equitable apportionnent of the water flowing i!l our inter-
state streams. ~ at least three decisions the U~ited Sta~es S~p~~e Co~~t
has ruled a;ainst the traditione.l Colorado contention that its water users
may use e.s they see fit all the water flowing within the -oorders of the
state v~thout regard to the riGhts of other states (see Kansas v. Colorado.
206 u. s. 46; Wyo~ng v. Colorado. 259 u. s. 419; llinderlider v. La PInta,
304 u. S. 92). Moreover. for Colorado to secure and hold the friendship of
the neighboring states we must assidiously live up to the letter and spirit
of agreements which we Dake with them. To do other.~se is to invite trouble.
Accordingly it is my opinion that Colorado must not only treat the 1933
Stipulation as valid and binding but must also stci7e to the utmost to carry
rot that stipulation i::l accordance wi. th its provi sions and intent.

_.~...