The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-11-09
TWO STATES FIGHTING OVER A
RIVER

A Washington dispatch a few days ago
in the United States Supreme Court its
answer in the suit of the State Of Kansas
against Colorado for restricting the use OF
the water of the Arkansas river. The suit
is an interesting one, and it's decision may
have an important bearing on the question
of irrigating arid lands. 1t also involves
fundamental questions as to the relations
between States and the national govern
ment.
The Arkansas river rises in the Rocky
mountains, and, after flowing nearly 800
miles through Colorado. it enters Kansas.
In the latter State it runs over 800 miles
through a section of country in which the
natural rainfall is always short, and which,
therefore, requires artificial irrigation.
The entire population of the valley through
which the river runs in Kansas is about
100000, including some towns and a con-
siderable farm population. all more or less
dependent on the waters Of the river for
irrigation purposes. But Colorado needs
the water for the same purpose, and has
diverted a large proportion of it into irri-
CATION canals and bitches. Fearing that
the water would all be appropriated by
Colorado the State of Kansas brought suit
In the Supreme Court asking for a decree
enjoining Colorado from granting any
corporation for the diversion of any of the
water Of the Arkansas river, and from
granting to any one the right to enlarge
any canal or ditch now In use, and also
restraining that State from constructing
irrigation canals or bitches. AS the
United States Supreme Court has exclusive
Jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil
nature between two States the suit had to
be filed in that court. To this bill, Colora-
do, about a year ago filed a demurrer on
as set forth did not constitute contro-
versy between two States, because Kan
sas as a State had no real interest In the
controversy and had no sovereignty en-
titling it to bring suit to protect the in
terests Of individuals. 1t was also main.
tanned that all Colorado had done in d.
verting the waters of the river was au-
thorized by law and by the States Con.
stitution. enacted pursuant to national au.
thority.
| The demurrer was argued last spring
and was overruled. In delivering the opin
ion of the court. Chief Justice FulIe,
quoted the decision in the Chicago drain
age canal case, in which the State o.
Missouri sought to enjoin the State o.
Illinois from permitting the sewage O
Chicago to flow into the aplaines river
and thence into the Missi. ,,p In tina
case the court held that the mere fac
that the State of Missouri had no pecun
iary interest in the case could not defea
the original jurisdiction of the court. Tn
| State OF Colorado. the chief justice said
contended that as a sovereign and indie
pendent State IL was justified. IL in IL
Judgment its geographical situation an
material welfare so demanded, in using al
the waters of the Arkansas river withi
its boundaries. But" said the chic
justice. eff a State OF this Union deprive
another State of its right on a navigabl
stream. and Congress has not regulated tn
subject. and no treaty can be made be
tween the States, how IL the matter to b
adjusted?' From this point OF view tn
court held that It would not decide th