The Grit-advocate., 1903-10-16
COLORADO FILES HER ANSWER In
KANSAS.COLORADO WATER SUIT

Denver. Oct 14.-Attorney General
Miller on Monday filed the answer Of
the state of Colorado to the amended
| bill of complaint in the kansas-colo-
rado water suit. in the Supreme Court
OF the United States. The document
has been in preparation for some time.
The complete list of attorneys for the
state of Colorado is as follows: At
! tCrney General n G. Miller, T.. o.
| Wolcott. joel F. Vale. Charles d.
Hayt, Plat Rogers, c. w. Waterman.
! Clyde Dawson and r T.. Gregg.
The answer is thirty eight pages in
! length and is a complete answer to the
| allegations made by the state of Kan
/ sas in its amended complaint.
! The answer states that none of the
rights which might arise from eXccp-
/ tions or otherwise are waived. The
! first part of the document ayers that
! Colorado was admitted to the Union,
and states that ever since that time
Colorado has been a sovereign state.
and has all the powers of sovereign
state except these which have been
( delegated to the federal government.
! Being so sovereign in its own terri
' '
control and regulate the use of the
/ water of non-navigabIe streams within
its boundaries. The Arkansas river is
a stream which has its source in Colo
RADIO. and the same is not an avenue
Of interstate commerce between the
states Of Colorado and Kansas. The
use of the waters uf such stream by
diversion thereof is essential to the
f.. no. of j,,h !, n I =
/ of the Arkansas valley in Colorado.
! The rights of Kansas as n sovereign
state do not extend in any way into
the state of Colorado, and under in
| terstate law the sovereign rights of
| Colorado to control the waters of this
! stream are not servient to the sovcr-
| eighty or rights of the state OF Kan
| sas.
The state of Kansas has no right or
Jurisdiction against Colorado, and the
state of Colorado can not be subjected
to the burden of arrestns its develop
ment. or of denying to the use OF Its
inhabitants the use Of an element
which nature has supplied entirely
within its own territory, and without
which, and the free use thereof its
lands would be uuinhabitable.
VI ~
preme Court of the United States by
judicial decree, says the answer, tc
deprive the state of Colorado of its
right to the use of this water.
For further answer, the defendanl
state of Colorado says:
1t is denied that the Arkansas river
is a navigablc stream after leaving
the mountains 1t is denied that the
l., oil hp hrs
barren. but it Is stated that they are
very rich lands when water is put on
them. 1t is stated that the character
istics of the lands in the eastern part
of Colorado and for $50 miles in Kan
sas are about the same.
The state of Colorado denies that
any dmunition of the flow of said riv'
cr is due to the divcrting of the water
in the state of Colorado. 1t is denied
that the tributaries Of the river in Kan
sas are few in number, and alleges
that there is ample rainfall to supply
these streams with sufficient water.
The seepage ultimately finds its way
| back to the river.
1t is denied that from time immemo-
rial the waters from such stream have
| flowed through underlying sand and
gravel under the entire Arkansas val
, lev and part of Kansas, but that such
flow, if any, is the ordinary water Ia
bic of the country. 1t Is denied that
this under flow" is sufficient to fur
nish moisture for the growing of crops.
| 1t is denied that the evaporation from
the stream is sufficient to so moisten
the air that irrigation is not needed.
It Is alleged that the watering places
for cattle in Kansas have not been ma
teriallv diminished by the diversion OF
water by the state of Colorado.
The document further says that:
The bottom lands in Kansas are not
! fit for the growing of crops unless they
| are irrigated the same as is done IN
Colorado.
The rights of settlers and their sue
| cossors to water from the river are
subsequent to the rights of those high
er up the stream.
The state of Kansas is not owner OF
/ the valley in question nor the Arkan-
sas river, except when the state OF
Kansas passed a law in 1856 saying
that the water of such stream could
| be used for irrigation by appropria-
| ton. Later, in 1891, an act similar to
| the irrigation laws of Colorado was
| passed allowing the diversion of
water from stream
Colorado has no knowledge Of the
grants of land in the Arkansas valley
from the United States to Kansas, and
| if there were such convcyances, they
were taken subject to the rights OF the
| state of Colorado. The rights OF Kan
sas to the water Of this river are not
| prior to the rights Of Colorado.
1t is admitted that ditch owners have
| diverted water for irrigation purposes.
| The rights of the Arkansas river alter
| being used for irrigation are returned
| TO the stream and pass into Kansas
! diminished only by an amount neces-
| >+>+>+>+>+~+>+
Denver Charter Election.
| Denver. Oct, 1.-THE supervisors