Gilpin observer., 1905-06-08
ENGINEER CARPENTER EXPLAINS
KANSAS-C0L0RAD0 WATER SUIT

i WuOl6 hauSaS ana leT Witnesses
have been acting in good faith, yet
they have been very grossly mistaken
and that II an Investigation had been
made by competent parties In the be-
ginning no suit would have been
brought.
Colorado denies that irrigation in
Colorado has dried up the river. In
stead Of dry years being Of recent oc-
currence, they have been common
from the earliest history Of the river,
and evidence was given by travellers
from the time of Pike onward that the
river was dry substantially as often
| as 1t is now. The evidence Of living
witnesses made complete chain of
testimony. showing that the river has
been dry for a greater part of the time
from 1888 down to the present, and
that the normal condition of stretch
Of several hundred miles in western
Kansas Is SO dry that water for drink
ing purposes is found only by digging
/ In the 0and.
The Primal Point.
A good many lines of evidence con-
verge upon this point for consideration
of the watershed, OF the rainfall, of the
loss Of water. This is the primal point
| of Kansas, and II she fails in this, it
would seem that she must fail in the
| main case.
As bearing upon the underHow the
ory, which was an exceedingly import
ant part of the Kansas case, the Col
orado expert presented cross-sections
| OF the valley at various places, with
profile of the water surface which re-
quired the running of lines over 500
| miles. In these cases the distance
from the surface to the ground water
was determined, and lines running at
hundred-mile distances were taken at
frequent intervals to determine the
truth OF the Kansas contention that
! the river affected the ground water a
| considerable distance from the stream.
The facts ascertained we're that the
| ground water was parellel with the
surface of the ground, was higher when
the ground was high and fell as the
| ground fell. 1t was also shown that
the underground water had velocity
Of usually less than ten feet per day,
hence that the great amount Of flowing
water supposed to be present was not
| there
| An analysis of the crop reports of
Kansas showed that the crops were
not dependent upon the river to any
| extent, but that the years of good or
bad crops In the Arkansas valley we're
likewise good or bad years in the Smo-
ky Hill and Republican valleys; that
| water was not used for irrigation, and
| further. that these years were years OF
good or poor rainfall.
Both Colorado and the government
| examined many witnesses upon the
| importance to tho West and the right
to appropriate water. This included
not only people from Colorado, but peo
pie from other states, including Kan.
sas, and also United States officers,
| senators, representatives. all Of whom
| showed the absolute necessity of the
| right in the development of this west
ern country.
1t was shown that the amount of
| land already irrigated exceeds the
number of acres of improved land in
New England.
The scope of the testimony. of
course, has been great, and has in
cluded hundreds and thousands of
minor points of considerable import
| ance, but each of greater or less value
as bearing upon the main issue.
| Kansas put in much evidence which
could be Of Importance only in cumu-
| lative way. She did not attempt to
| present any expert evidence. and ap-
, parently made no investigations, but
relied upon the conclusion that If Colo
RADIO took water from the river the
river must be decreasing, and there
fore her people injured.
The government offered evidence of
| the condition on interstate streams
such as the Platte, the Rio Grande,
and numerous others. emphasizing a
condition which would suggest the gov
! ernment taking charge Of the inter-
state streams. This caused Colorado
to enter upon questions covering a
large extent of territory outside the Ar
kansas valley.
The evidence of Colorado tends to
show that Kansas has not been dam
aged; that she has been mistaken in
her contention; that she has no cause
junction asked for should not be
| granted.
At the same time 1t is not to be as
sumed that the Supreme Court will
| lightly dismiss the case. II is recog-
nized that a conflict between the ripar-
ian doctrine and the doctrine Of appro-
| priation Is Inevitable. and that the is
sues in this case are of great import
| ince. not only to the people imme-
lately concerned. but to the whole
western United States.
The members of the Supreme Court
recognize this, and 1t is not improba-
BILE that they may make this the occa-
sion for going extensively into the law
OF Interstate streams. The unfavorable
feature In the case is in the fact that
the members of the Supreme Court
are not acquainted with the conditions
of the West and that without such per.
sonal knowledge. much Of the testi-
mony is apt to be unintelligible to
them and possibly misleading. and that
they may be seriously misled In their
application of equity and luminous
| -