The Grit-advocate., 1905-06-09

the evidence which has been presented.
Professor l.. G. Carpenter, state engi-
,neer. has prepared statement in
which he says in part:
The case in the Supreme Court
brought by the state OF Kansas against
the state of Colorado Is one Of few
cases Of original jurisdiction brought
by one state against another.
! The character OF the contention Is
not generally realized by the people of
Colorado. Knowing there is suit,
they interpret 1t as one of the kind OF
suits common in all irrigated sections,
that is, dispute between bitches
wanting the same water. If this were
the suit it would be relatively unim-
iportant, although serious enough TO
many interests in the Arkansas valley.
| The case did not originate at the re-
quest Of people in western Kansas.
On the contrary the people of western
Kansas have generally opposed the
suit. The agitation for the suit was al
most entirely confined to the people at
Arkansas City, which is the last town
in Kansas near the Oklahoma border,
and Wichita, where no irrigation is
,practiced. They claim under the
broad doctrine of riparian rights a doc
trine which is largely development
of the conditions in England, where
the greatest use Of water is In the
streams and for navigation purposes.
Riparian Doctrine InappIicabIe.
The only ones having rights arc
those whose idnds border on the
streams. and their use must not inter-
tfere with navigation nor with the use
of water for domestic purposes.
The doctrine is one entirely inap-
,picable to an arid region where water
,can best be used for irrigation. The
doctrine has, however, been recognized
by the courts of several Of our states
and In general it may be said that the
riparian doctrine is the law of the land
outside of the strictly arid portion,
and some extreme decisions have been
given by the courts, one of these de-
.cisions a few years since giving much
encouragement to the people of south
ern Kansas to begin this suit.
A series of dry years as well as set
tlement and cultivation of the vast ter
ritory and both sides of the river in
Kansas had affected the flow, and this
coming at a time when much was said
Colorado, caused a state of nervous ap-
prehension which was increased by re-
ports of still larger developments con-
templated. 1t is not surprising that
with the popular view that the water
came from the Rbcky mountains, these
people were fearful that the river
might be entirely lost.
Kansas asks that Colorado be en-
joined from permitting the diversion
from any Of the waters of the Arkansas
r.ver or tributaries, except for domes-
tic use.
Kansas also asks that the respective
rights of the states be fixed and de-
cree rendered for their protection. The
complaint is very soluminous, and in
clcdes great many minor specifica-
tions, but these are the most important
ones, and serve to show the general
trend of the case.
= United States lntervenes.
Kansas introduced her case in chief
from August to October of 1904. After
the case was begun the United States
asked leave to intervene as party
whose interests were materially at
fected by the issues presented. On the
principal issue the government sides
with Colorado, Its contention being that
the right to divert and use the water
Of natural streams for irrigation pur-
poses is one absolutely necessary in a
great part of the United States, and
that to apply the riparian doctrine
would almost entirely destroy the en-
tire West. While conceding this right
Of appropriation. the government
claims that it should be applied with
out regard to state lines, otherwise its
position is much the same as that of
Colorado.
Contention Of Kansas.
The main contention CT Kansas Is:
First-That the river in Kansas has
diminished substantially with the in
crease of bitches in Colorado, hence
she has attempted to show, by the
opinions of people living along the
river, that it is lower than it was dur
ing the early days; that it is dry for
longer periods of time and is narrower
Second-That there have been
bitches built in Colorado which took
the water, leaving the inference to be
drawn that the construction o1
bitches was the cause of the change
Another but very important point
was that the so-called underflow had
been diminished. Kansas contends
that there is a large stream accom-
panying the main river, but much
broader in extent. and that this is sup
piled by the surface river and is i'm
portant in the growing Of crops upor
a wide stretch of land along the valley
especially in the vicinity of Hutchin
son and Wichita. She claims that be
cause the river has been decreased
this so-called underfloIS has been af
fected and that the damage to the
owners OF lands IS enormous and be
yond computation" and amounts t.
vast sums annually and such damage:
have increased year by year. especial,
in proportion as the diversion in Colo
rada increased"
Answer Of Colorado.
In the answer made by Colorado sh'