The Grit-advocate., 1903-10-16

sary to iTrisatn the arid lands. Such
water is not wholly lost.
1t is admitted that reservoirs have
been constructed by funds appropriate
ed by the State Legislature but this
has tended to minimize the waste OF
water.
1t is denied by Colorado that when
the state OF Kansas was created or the
the territory was created that it had
the right to the unimpcded flow OF
the Arkansas river. The common law
doctrine Of riparian rights did not eX-
tend over the territory OF Kansas.
Some of the water OF the river had
been appropriated in Colorado before
that time
1t is denied that the water of the
river has been used eXtravaGautly or
that the vegetation in the Arkansas
valley has suffered because OF too much
water
The state Of Colorado for further an
swer 10 the bill OF complaint, says
Diversions were made according to
the laws and customs prevailing in ar
ID regions.
a report of the United States govern
ment made in the early days of the Re
public stated that these lands In Colo
RADIO were arid lands and that these
could not be made productive of aSri-
cultural products without diversion.
This was done in accordance with the
customs and laws prevailing in Mex
!cO and the western country generally.
The doctrine of diversion early oh
tained in this country. The right OF
diversion was detailed by the United
States in a treaty with Spain in 1919.
This act has been later confirmed
by the states Of Colorado and Kansas.
The United States government rec
ognzed and approved this doctrine
long prior to the sale Of any public
lands in the Arkansas valley.
When Kansas was admitted to the
Union il was admitted with the agree
ment that the state was not to inter
fere with the existing rights of the soil
Acts were passed by the United
States government recognizing the
doctrine of appropriation in 1886.
1870, 1877, 1891. 1894 and 1902.
and all grants of land by the United
States government in the Arkansas val
ley were given subject to the doctrine
of appropriation.
The defendant state for further an
swer says:
| Many of the diversions of water OF
the Arkansas river we're made while
| Colorado was "A part of the state of
Kansas The state of Kansas was well
aware that lands west of the 9Sth mer-
idian were arid lands; that they would
be useless without the diversion of the
water from the Arkansas river.
The state of Kansas, nor its people.
prior to the filing of the bill in this suit
ever complained concerning the diver
,,r, I,, F,. 81, I.t, t.i, ,,y
appropriation had been approved many
times by the state of Kansas.
The state of Kansas has at all times
acguiosccd in the diversion OF this wa
ter and by its delay in fling this com
plant has forfeited any and all ripar-
ian rights now claimed.
The users of water in the western
part of Kansas have not Joined in this
complaint as they know that diversion
of the water is not necessary to t>e use
of the land.
The state of Colorado dscaims any
right to represent persons or corpora
tions now diverting water from the Ar
kansas river.
The closing paragraphs at tbs ~.
swer are as follows:
by the practice of irrigation in the
flow OF said river in the state of Kan
sas, outside the food periods. is in
creased instead of diminished. A great
part of the land lying between the foot
hills Of the mountains and the state
line and extending several miles back
from the river on each side, which, in
its natural condition is devoid of mOis-
ture as alleged in the bill Of complaint.
becomes saturated irrigation prOduc-
ing a condition the same as that pro-
duced by abundant rainfall. Water
veins and channels are created in tho
land; springs break ont, and the water
seeking lower level continually ex-
udes into the nearest dry channels
coursing the country, making them
perennial streams discharging water
into the river The storm and food
waters of the river are stored in largo
quantities and during the irrigating
season are added to the water divert
ed directly from the river and applied
to the land thus serving to convert the
food waters OF the river into an addi-
tional source of supply for the river
during its lowest natural stages As
the irrigated area has moved eastward
the return and seepage waters from the
lands irrigated have materially In
creased the flow of the river and water
now flows continuously in said river
at many points where, at low stages
of the river. it was not accustomed to
flow prior to the development Of irri-
CATION systems in Colorado 49,
This defendant. now having fully
answered all the allegations in the
plaintiffs amended bill of complaint,
or so much thereof as the defendant is
advised should be answered. asks to be
hence dismissed with costs and charges
in this behalf sustained
ID. s.>+>+>+>+><>%>+
British Cabinet Change.