The Grit-advocate., 1905-06-09
ENGINEER CARPENTER EXPLAINS
kANSAS-C0L0RAD0 water SUIT

| 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 it is now. The evidence of living
witnesses made a complete chain of
testimony, showing that the river has
been dry for 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 C2nd.
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 If she fails in this, it
would seem that she must fail in the
main case.
AS bearing upon the underflow 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
| considerable distance from the stream.
| The facts ascertained were 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 a 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 rs the Platte, the Rio Grande,
and numerous others, emphasizing a
condition which would suggest the gov
/ ernment taking charge CT 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
of action, and therefore that the in
junction asked for should not be
granted.
At the same time it is not to be as
sumed that the Supreme Court will
lightly dismiss the case. 1t 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
lnce. 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
| IL
, 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
! common sense to these conditions.