The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-02-02
WATER FOR IRRIGATION.
A Colorado Opinion on the Arkansas
River Trouble.
[From the Denver Republican,

IF'rom the Denver Republican,
While, as recently set forth in these
columns, the pretensions of the Kansas
farmers in the neighborhOod of Wichita
to the right to enjoin the diversion of
the waters of the Arkansas river for ir-
rigation in Colorado are utterly falla-
cious, the notoriety given to such
claims is threatening to very seriously
interfere with the settlement of the Ar
kansas valley in Colorado.
We learn that in various localities
where agents are endeavoring to secure
settlers for that valley they are met by
the tatement that if the Kansas farm
ers are correct, our lands will be rem
dered incapable of cultivation and that
they prefer not to run the hazard.
Whatever is true of the Arkansas riv-
er as between Kansas and Colorado is
of course also true as between Nebras-
ka and Colorado, and Wyoming and
Colorado, as our principal streams from
which water is taken for irrigation con-
tinue into these several states. The
contention of the Kansas farmers, if
correct, would serve to destroy stimuli
taneously the entire irrigated area of
Colorado.
It is therefore a question of state i'm
portance, requiring some official refuta-
ton of the claims of the Kansas people
In the case of Kansas the pretension is
certainly without merit, since for many
years the legislature of that state has
been passing laws recognizing and reg
ulating the appropriation of water from
all the streams in the western portion
of the state for purposes of irrigation.
BY them she has thus placed herself up
on the same footing as Colorado in re-
spect to running water, granting the
right of diversion for irrigating pur-
poses.
She has herself abandoned the ripar-
ian doctrine upon which the Wichita
farmers must depend for success, and it
seems plain that with like doctrines
controlling the policy of the two states,
the water of the Arkansas may be ta-
ken in the order of appropriating, judged
by reference to which it will be found
that all the waters of the Arkansas
were appropriated long before any con-
siderable decisions were made in Kan
sas.
The seriousness of the situation lies
more in the action of the present legis-
lature of Kansas than in the merits of
the controversy.
The consideration of a bill authorizing
the people of certain counties lying
along the Arkansas river to impose a
special tax for the purpose of raising a
fund. to conduct litigation to deprive
the farmers in Arkansas valley in Colo
RADIO of water gives priority to the
claim which must certainly be detr1-
mental to Colorado.
It's enactment into law would amount
to an assault by the state of Kansas
upon the most valuable property right
of which we are possessed, and if not
successful in the outcome would mean
while act an as effective SANDER of our
title.
Under these circumstances our 1egis-
1ature would not go amiss if immediate
action were taken to confute the claims
of Kansas, and it would seem eminently
proper if a direct communication were
sent to the corresponding body in Kan
sas demanding a plain statement as to
their purpose in respect to a plan de-
signed to injure a neighboring state,
whose trade is more valuable to Kan
sas than it's water, without the expecta-
ton of any gain to Kansas commensur-
ate with the loss to Colorado.
In any event, we can not allow the
tide of immigration to one of the most
active valleys in Colorado to be checked
by baSeleSS assertions. The publicity
of the claim Of Kansas must be met by
the equally public denial of the validity
of that claim.