Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-07-27
NATIONAL IRRIGATION.
An Argument Against Federal Control of
Irrigation.

The National Advocate is a paper de-
voted to the advocacy of irrigation con-
Quoted by the national government as
distinguished from the states. 1t would
place the entire system of irrigation
under control of the federal govern
ment, and compel the states to submit
to whatever laws might be enacted by
congress for the distribution of water
and to officials appointed by some de-
partment officer in Washington.
The Republican party in it's national
platform has taken the correct position,
which is hat the national government
should promote the reclamation Of the
arid region, but that the regulation of
irrigation matters should be left to the
| states. Every one who has given intel
| ligent and unprejudiced consider alton
to the subject will admit that this Is
| right, and that it would be disastrous
to deprive the states of the power to
| regulate their irrigation systems.
Irrigation is as much a matter of
state or domestic concern as the con-
struction and maintenance of county
roads. The problems connected with it
are almost exclusively local in charac-
ter, arising as they do out of local con-
ditions. One state has one system and
another something widely different. 1t
| should be left to each state to deter
mine what particular method of water
| distribution it may prefer. To intrust
| the matter to congress would involve
the enactment of laws through the
votes of men who are densely ignorant
of irrigation, never having had an OPP
portunity to study it. Eventually, 1t
| would be turned over to a commission
of either the interior or the agricul-
tural department, and Colorado and
| New Mexico irrigation interests would
be controlled by men in the selection OF
| whom the people of those common
wealths would have no choice.
No man who is loyal to the interests
of the arid states can consistently ad-
vocate national control of irrigation
The only shadow of excus for it is the
| plea that unless congress takes every
thing pertaining to irrigation out OF
state hands injustice will be done by
| Colorado to farmers residing in Kansas
or Nebraska. 1t is claimed that Colo
RADIO has no right to divert within its
limits water which might be used fol
irrigation beyond the state line in Kan
sas, as If Ka nsas had any right supe-
| rior to that of Colorado.
Colorado has a right to all the water
of it's streams, and the Arkansas does
not cease to be a Colorado stream un-
til it crosses the state line. But apart
from this constitutional proposition, the
question between a Kansas and a Colo
RADIO %irrigator is an individual NC. The
Kansas man cannot claim that he has
been injured unless he can show in him.
self a prior right to divert the water
consumed in Colorado. 1t Is in thai
case purely one of vested rights, to be
settled in the courts according to the
facts of the case.
The danger to be feared from this
denial of a right to divert water for ir-
rigation in Colorado is that the SUI
preme court of the United States may
take the ground that the doctrine of
riparian rights should be enforced. In
that case all irrigation would be de-
stroyed. Irrigation is in conflict with
riparian rights, which were long ago
set aside in Colorado by the laws of this
state. In case the riparian right doc
trine should be enforced, 1t would pre-
vent irrigation in Kansas as effectually
as it would in Colorado, and agricul-
ture in the arid region would be de-
stroyed. 1t is difficult to believe that
the supreme court of the United States
would take so radical a stand, but
there is no telling what it might decide,
and, therefore, men who are interested
in retaining the arid region should do
all in their power to enlighten the pub
lie and the courts on this highly impor-
tant phase of the subject.