The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-01-25
Arkansas River Water is Being
Fought For.
Association In Session Passes
Strong Resolutions.
ASKS STATE OFFICERS
To Proceed Against Colorado
Citizens Without Delay.
Eugene F. Ware Makes an Ad-
s dress to the Convention.


Wichita. Kan, Jan 25.-The Arkansas
River association, which met in cenven-
requesting Governor Stanley and Attor-
ney General GODDARD to begin proceedings
in the United States court against the
state of Colorado and its citizens to pre-
vent the diverting Of the water in the Ar
kansas river from its regular course. A
further resolution requests the state leg
islature to take such steps as it may
think necessary, right and proper to
protect the interests of the state and peo-
pie of Kansas" The organization IS COM
posed of the owners of riparian rights In
the Arkansas valley. The convention was
an 0utgrowth Of the bill now pending IN
congress asking for a large appropriation
from the government for the CONSTRUCTION
of storage reservoirs in eastern and south
central Colorado, in which it is proposed
to run the waters of the Arkansas river,
the water to be used for irrigation pur-
poses in that state. It is alleged that
era1 years past WrOngfully diverted the
waters Of the river for the betterment OF
their own lands, to the injury OF the rip
arian owners in Kansas.
E. F. Ware of Topeka represented the
attorney general and the governor and
remarked that whatever would be the
pleasure of the convention would be acted
upon by these two officials. A committee
the proper form to the governor and
fore the convention adjourned 1t formed
EcEert of Wv as chairman and
About fifty delegates from the various
towns of the Arkansas valley were rep
Mr.. Ware made an extended address to
the convention. saying in part:
Looking at it from a Kansas point of
view and feeling the loss which we suffer
and perceiving in the future the exag-
geration of that loss, which is destined
to come, our decision may perhaps be in
Tl14f RAJ me
state to deprive another state of the adj
vantages which nature has given 1t is an
streams away from Kansas is an act of
war; that it would be act of war for
the water Of Lake Constance or the noun
tains from the Rhine over into the Dan
any river from it's course and from the
territory of a foreign nation. Upon this
and if that be So and if the changing of
natural streams be act of war, then
Has one state in the Union the right to
do that to another state which would be
tantamount to an act of WARP
I'm discussing the rights of Kansas it
IS interesting to know what the law was
been under several codes of law: First,
the French: then the Spanish: then the
the Mexican over a part Of It: after that,
Texas over q part of it. Spain and Mex
where Dodge City now is and extended
along the southern line of the Arkansas
from the Tooth meridian half of the Ar
kansas river was Anglo-Saxon to the mid
half Of it through the same distance was
Spanish. Under the Spanish law, a lower
estate upon a river was enuJled TO re
ceive from the upper estate all water,
sand and stones that came down the
stream moving in the course of nature.
estate from not only diverting the water,
but even the sand and rock that, unaided
the Stream bed The w Ang1o S2o of lsw
gave riparian rights which from time to
vigorously enforced.
Kansas. when created as a territory in
mountains, and in those days Kansas
adopted the English common law and
governed the sources and drainage area
Of the Arkansas river. That present part
Of Colorado was then Kansas, and the
Kansas was admitted to the Union in
1880 and the western part cut OF. It was
no vested right of any moment had arisen fssrl
on any Of the waters of the upper Ar
vested under the then law of Kansas ter
when Kansas was settled and admit
ted to the Union as a state, then Colorado
became a territory, and when the rights
had not yet accrued. so that there can
be no priority of rights in Colorado. but
the priority Of rights was and has re-
NAMED in Kansas along the line Of the
river If Colorado had been settled first
and rights had first accrued in Colorado,
before they had accrued in Kansas a
different feeling would prevail, because
then Kansas would have been settled up
in anticipation of exiting right in Colo
rados but such was not the case. Kansas
was admitted sixteen years before Colo
RADIO, and Colorado had been state for
ten years before there was any sensible
diminution of the current of the Arkansas
river So that Kansas is prior In right
and prior in time, and unless a strange /
and unacceptable phase of the doctrine of |
state sovereignty is to prevail, it would I
appear that the rights of Kansas should
be respected.
THE doctrine of prior appropriation as
advocated by Colorado is a. most shadowy
one. We recognize the right of approprf-
alton of water by Colorado for domestic
uses. To that extent we recognize the |
doctrine of appropriation, but the farmer
along the banks of the Arkansas river |
who waters his cattle from the running |
stream has a right of appropriation which
aE paramount and superior to the right of |
the man who, 500 miles west has dug a |
canal and thrown the water out from its |
natural channel onto the parched and arid |
land, from which it never returns.
In Kansas the appropriation began /
when the first settler was on the banks /
Of the Arkansas river. Appropriation is
who appropriates water except for do |
nestle uses should return it to the stream /
Ia its original volume and purity. If he 4
appr0prlates it to turn mill and, having I
used it, returns 1t to the channel, that Is 4
permissible, but to take the water and /
carry it into the desert. from whence 1t I
never returns, except borne on the winds Il
OF heaven Is not a permissible way of ap- |
MR ww mmww