Rocky Ford enterprise., 1905-06-09
ENGINEER CARPENTER EXPLAINS
KAMSAS-C0L0RAD0 water SUIT


sas and II seems evident that while as
whole Kansas and her 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 tho 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 ~ often
as Il II now. The evidence Of living
Witnesses made 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 Ii 80 dry that water for drink
ing purposes In found only by digging
In the sand.
The Primal Point
A good many lines OF evidence con-
verge upon this point for consideration
Of the watershed. OF the rainfall. OF tho
loss OF water. This Is the primal point
of Kansas. and II she fails in this. II
would seem that she must fall In the
main case.
As bearing upon the undcrnow tho.
ory. which was an exceedingly import.
ant part of tho Kansas case. the Col.
Of the valley nj various places. with
profile Of the wafer surface which re.
quircd the running OF lines over 500
miles. In these cases the distance
from tho surface to the ground water
was determined. and lines running nj
hundrcti.miie distances were taken at
frequent Intervals 10 determine tho
truth Of tho Kansas contention that
the river affected the ground water a
considerable distance from the stream.
Tho faciS asccrtained were that the
ground wntcr was parciici with the
surface OF tho ground. was higher when
tho ground was hish and fell ns tho
ground fell. II was also shown that
tho underground water had n velocity
OF usually less than ten feet per day.
hence that the great amount OF flowing
water supposed to be present was not
there.
Kansas showed that tho crops were
not dependent upon tho river to any
extent, but that tho years OF good or
bad crops In the Arkansas valley ~crc
likewise good or bad years In tho Smo.
ky Hin and Republican valleys: that
water wns not used for irrigation. and
further. that these years were years Of
good or poor rainfall.
nnsh fnlavuJn and hn wnye w n
examined many witnesses upon the
importance to tho West and the right
TO appropriate water. This Included
not only people from Colorado. but pco
pic from other states. including Kan.
sas. and also United States officers.
senators. representatives,. NIL Of whom
showed the absolute necessity OF the
right in the development OF this west.
crn country.
II 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-
parcntly made no investigations. but
relied upon the conclusion that II Colo
RADIO took water from the river the
river must bo 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 n
condition which would suggest the gov
, ernment taking charge OF the inter-
state streams. This caused Colorado
to enter upon questions covering n
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 1t is not to be as.
sumed that the Supreme Court will
lightly dismiss the case. 1t is recog.
nized that 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
ance. 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
common sense to these conditions.