What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
acre acre-feet affected agriculture amount of water applying appropriation Arkansas river August authorized Board bridge canal channel charge Colorado compact considerable construction cost crops Daily discharge Date Discharge measurements district ditches diversion engine expense Experiment farm farmer feet flood flow Gage Dis Gage height Garden City gauge increased installed interest irrigation commissioner July June June July Kansas Knapp land Larned legislature Location March Maximum Mean method mile natural necessary November obtained officials operation period present pumping plant Purgatoire range rating curve received Records relation reservoir respecting season second-feet secured Sept September shows stages Stambaugh station storage stream sufficient Syracuse Table tion township United valley various Verne water right water supply Wichita yield
Page 21 - States and to the President of the United States, and the President of the United States is requested to give notice to the Governors of the signatory States of approval by the Congress of the United States.
Page 21 - This compact shall become binding and obligatory when it shall have been approved by the Legislatures of each of the signatory States and by the Congress of the United States.
Page 27 - If congress consented, then the states were in this respect restored to their original inherent sovereignty; such consent being the sole limitation imposed by the constitution, when given, left the states as they were before . . . whereby their compacts became of binding force, and finally settled the boundary between them: operating with the same effect as a treaty between sovereign powers.
Page 21 - River System not covered by the terms of this compact; (b) over the meaning or performance of any of the terms of this compact; (c) as to the allocation of the burdens incident to the performance of any article of this compact or the delivery of waters as herein provided: (d) as to the construction or operation of works...
Page 27 - Glover, 119 US, 543; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 US, 444; Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 US, 479; Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 US, 503; Wharton v. Wise, 153 US, 155; St.
Page 43 - A failure to comply with such rules deprives the claimants of the right to the use of the water as against a subsequent claimant who complies therewith.
Page 18 - Kansas as against all the defendants, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to institute new proceedings whenever it shall appear that through a material increase in the depletion of the waters of the Arkansas by Colorado, its corporations or citizens, the substantial interests of Kansas are being injured to the extent of destroying the equitable apportionment of benefits between the two states resulting from the flow of the river.