Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-12
SUIT ABOUT 4 RIVER
Interesting Case inthe United
States Supreme Court.
MUCH EVIDENCE HEARD
ACTION BROUGHT BY KANSAS
AGAINST COLORADO.
Use of the Arkansas River for Purposes
of Irrigation the Subject Of
the Controversy.
BY VIM. e. CURTIS.

BY VIM E. CURTIS.
Written for The Evening Star and the Chicago
Record Herald.
A lawsuit with some sensational features
is now pending in the Supreme Court Of the
United States between the state Of Kan
sas and the state of Colorado, or the inter-
ests protected by that state, concerning the
right to use the water flowing through the
Arkansas river.
1t leaves the Rocky mountains at an ele-
walton of about 5000 feet above sea level,
and thence flows eastward over the elevat-
ed plateau known as '1The Great Plains"
for several hundred miles, with practi-
cally uniform descent. passing into the
state Of Kansas at an elevation Of 1850
feet, into the territory of Oklahoma at an
elevation of 900 feet and then through the
state Of Arkansas, past the city of Little
Rock, to the Mississippi river south Of the
city of Helena. Through Colorado and
Kansas the river has no tributaries, but
occupies a broad level bed Of sand, which
is seldom covered with water and is often
practically dry in spots. The annual pre-
cipitation of moisture for about 400 miles
east of the Royal Gorge, where 1t comes
out Of the mountains, Is about fourteen
inches, most of which fails in local and
violent storms and disappears almost as
rapidly as it comes.
Involved in the contention is a phenome-
non now being investigated by engineers.
The reason why the Arkansas has no trib-
utary, according to their observations. is
because of the underground drainage by
stream with velocity of eight or ten feet
to the mile which follows almost the same
course and robs it of water which, under
different conditions, would flow above
ground. This is an important point in the
suit, because, as / understand 1t, the attor-
neyS of Kansas contend that this under
oI~ of
the water by the irrigated soil, and upon
that and other contentious the state of
Kansas asks the Supreme Court of the
United States to prohibit the state of Colo
RADIO from diverting water from the Arkan-
sas river for irrigation, and to require 1t to
cut off the rights of numerous corporations
and associations which are now using it
for that purpose
Legal Proceedings Begun.
For years Kansas has threatened to bring
this suit, and two years ago the legislature,
prompted by commercial organizations of
the city Of Wichita authorized the attorney
general to commence proceedings. He first
attacked the state of Colorado alone, but
afterward amended the complaint becau
the state government itself is doing moth
ing, and made seventeen or eighteen irriga-
ton companies that using the water
between Leadville and the state line of
court took jurisdiction, appointed Mr.. Rich
ardson a commissioner to take testimony,
and he has examined about eighty Witness
es, an equal number on either side. He
began In Kansas last summer and in Col
orado October 1. He now. has yet to hear
the rebuttal testimony of Kansas and the
rebuttal testimony of Colorado, when copies
of the evidences will he furnished to the
lawyers on both sides, and they will be
given abundant time to prepare their briefs
and arguments. N' - f''
1t is not expected that the case will come
up in court again for at least two years,
but everybody in both states is deeply in
terested, not only because enormous inter-
ests are involved. but because the issue is
entirely unique one and was never raised
in court before.
The people of Colorado, feeling that the
future prosperity and even the existence
of their agricultural industries are in peril,
fear that the justices, sitting in their cham
bers at Washington, do not appreciate or
understand it's gravity, and are appealing
to them to come out and examine the irrf
cation systems and inspect the irrigated
farms in person. They contend that the
court cannot do justice unless it takes
the testimony of its own eyes, and that the
equities cannot be explained in words, be-
cause If the court deprives them of water
every farm in the southeastern part of Col
orado is worthless. Justice Peckham spent
his vacation in Colorado last summer and
saw something of the situation. Justice
Brewer. who is a Kansas man, and Justice
McKenna, a Californian, are familiar with
the irrigation business, but the other men,
berS of the court have never had an op-
portunity to inform themselves on the sub
ject.
The Kansas Contention.
The attorneys of Kansas have produced
about forty witnesses to prove that the
Arkansas river used to be much bigger
than it is now, and that the people have
been deprived of water which they need
Several of their witnesses were Indians who
used to live in the valley before the white
man drove them to reservations.
The Colorado lawyers have submitted
evidence showing the enormous utility and
the absolute necessity of the irrigation syS-
tenn to the agricultural industry and that
otherwise the water would go to waste.
There are no water power manufactures
on the river; the water is not used for me-
chanical purposes anywhere, but for 100
miles east of the Kansas line the Arkansas
valley is irrigated. The population in that
belt are said to be opposed to the suit and
their sympathies are entirely with Colorado
1t is contended that beyond this irrigated
system the people of Kansas have no use
for the water while it is essential to the
life and welfare of the Inhabitants of Colo
RADIO. While the hidden river, or under
fiow, is admitted by Colorado, it is claimed
that 1t moistens the roots and promotes the
growth OF vegetation, and is beneficial.
rather than detrimental to the welfare of
Kansas 1t is also alleged that the water
used In irrigation Is not lost nor wasted:
that the water cannot be- DESTROYED. and
that, after being used over and over again
to moisten the ground, it returns to the
channel OF the river without being dimin-
ished in quantity or impaitsdsin quality
The Colorado Claim.
1t is contended also thaEihe appropria-
ton of the waters complaitf6d-of was made
prior to the creation of CoIArddo, while the
Arkansas valley was a parESIe Kansas. and
that SO far back as 1859 hieyfegisIature of
that territory approved audttecoenized the
right of the people to U.s. the water for
irrigation purposes by cf1afSring several
companies in that valley. AffSr the admis-
sion OF Kansas into the 1x4bn the same
doctrine was upheld, and WAhlth sanction
and announcement of thea&f3te about 800
miles of canals and ditche s&4a20e been CON
structed in the Arkansas VIII in Kansas.
at cost of about $1,000, OH Ind now irri-
gate not less than 100, Tres in that
state from the Arkansas rttSTf in precisely
the same way and by thsX4aHme methods
used across the border In ia state of Col
orado. Hence. the people efCyoIorado argue
that II their water rights are cut Off the
irrigation companies in Kansas should he
made TO suner In similar manner
The interests OF western Kansas and
southeastern Colorado are common. and an
agitation has been started for the annexa-
ton to the latter of q strfp Of the western
portion of the former state about 100 miles
wide. Bills will be fntroduoaS 100 az ii.-ri.