The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-11-27
Claim They Cannot be EnjOined
by Kansas Farmers.
RELIEF BY SEEPAGE.
Interstate Water Question
Now in the Courts.
Nebraska, Wyoming and New
Mexico in a Similar Fix.

Denver, Nov. 27.-Regarding the dis
patch from Wichita. Kan, which stated
that steps had been taken in that state
to procure an injunction against users
of water from the Rocky Ford ditch,
Judge Platt Rogers, who is interested
in several irrigation corporations IN the
Arkansas valley, said:
The Rocky Ford ditch is one of the
oldest running from the river. These
Kansas people, to my mind, can only
proceed on the theory that they nad
built a ditch and taken water from IL
before the Rocky Ford residents, a pro-
position that 1 believe is not true. There
Is no danger of the Injunction being
granted if 1 understand the situation
correctly. They may take the ground
that they have right to the river wa
ter irrespective of any Colorado ditch
being constructed many years ago Per
haps they think they have right to
the entire river, that the waters should
be unmolested and allowed to float into
their state, without interference from
this side.
For some time, we have anticipated
a proceeding emanating from Kansas
apprOpriatos, who claimed to be ahead
of consumers in Colorado. We believed
it would be brought against one OF the
later Colorado appropriations simply as
a test case TO determine respective
rights to the water. But it seems that
they have selected what I believe to be
the oldest ditch fed by the Arkansas in
either Colorado or Kansas l take the
position, and L believe L am right. that
so long as the water of this river re-
mains in Colorado. the people OF Color
ado have a right TO put it to the full
est possible use.
The difficulties in Kansas will be
renedied in time by return or seepage
waters. These bitches and canals run
ming from up the river in the state, have
tendency to saturate the ground to
such an extent that their waters Will
naturally find their way again to the
river at point further down in its
course. Thus will be produced a good
flow, to meet almost any requirements
from the appropriations located below
the original consumers. The questions
concerning interstate waters have been
mOOted for some time Nebraska is in
the same position as Kansas; so is
Wyoming, and New Mexico.
"One can readily see that. if the in
junction as prayed for by the Kansas
people, is granted, the Rocky Ford ap-
perpetrators and others in the vicinity
viii be deprived of a vital necessity. In
fact, if they were to be prohibited from
using the water the greatest agricul-
tural area in the state would be ruin
ed
Another authority says:
The constitution and laws of Kansas
do not operate in Colorado. They do
not go up the Arkansas river and into
this state and determine whether a cit
izen of Colorado shall or shall not di-
vert for irrigation the water of that
stream before it passes out of Color
ADDS jurisdiction.
But there may be some question in
regard to vested rights in Kansas and
injury to them inflicted by the diver
sion of water in Colorado 1t is posi-
bic that such rights would be protected
in a federal court. But in such a case
the right of the Kansas man would
have to be very clearly shown. Very
possibly the lawyers who discuss this
question Will have a great deal to say
about riparian rights, though under Il
system of irrigation riparian rights
cannot properly be given anv recOgni-
tion whatever. The Kansas right
which would be entitled to protection
against a diversion of water in Color
ado would properly be-if there is any
such right at ala prior appropriation
of water in Kansas for the purpose of
irrigation.