The La Jara chronicle. (La Jara, Conejos County, Colo.) 1896-19??, 1906-12-21
KANSAS CASEBAD
WEAK CONTENTION BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.
ARGUMENT OF C0L0RADANS
Kansas Wants Riparian Rights as
Against Colorado-Yet She Would
Use the Water Herself-History Of
the River Brought Out.

Washington.-In the Kansas Colo
RADIO case before the Supreme Court
| Tuesday Judge Ashbaugh finished His
argument in behalf Of Kansas and was
| followed by n. H. LOOMS, who closed
the case for that state.
Judge Ashbaugh devoted his time to
| further analysis of testimony tending
to show that Kansas had suffered ir-
reparable injury by reason of diversion
of the waters of the Arkansas for irri-
CATION purposes in Colorado.
He declared Colorado has appropri-
ated 900 cubic feet of water per Sec
and, which practically takes all the
| supply of the stream in the irrigation
| season. He placed the total damages
suffered by Kansas in the past fifteen
years at not less than s75,O00,0O0. He
said Kansas demands n fair division OF
the water of the Arkansas river, which
| would not be less than 700 cubic feet
second.
Mr.. Loomis took up legal features Of
the case and was proceeding finely
with his argument sustaining riparian
rights. when he was interrupted by
some pertinent inquiries from Justice
White.
One of these was to ask how Kansas
could stand for the common law doc
trine of riparian rights. which requires
| that all water taken from river
should be returned to it without loss
in quantity, and at the same time CON
tinue to divert the waters of the
, stream in western Kansas for irriga-
ton, and object to her sister stale do
| ing the same thing. This inquiry en-
barrassed Loomis. who failed TO an
swer it, and went on with his legal ar
| gument.
Justice White apparently was not
satisfied and continued his Interrupt
ton. saying:
THE contention of Kansas leads to
| a curious position on the part of that
state. If it stands for riparian doc
trines, it can not irrigate itself ON
the other hand, if it stands for the doc
trine of prior appropriation, why
should it object to Colorado using the
water under the same doctrlne?'
Again Mr.. Loomis evaded the argu-
ment directly and branched into a
phase of the subject entirely irrelevant
to the inquiries propounded by the
| justice.
| Clyde C. Dawson opened the argu-
I ment for Colorado. He called the at
\ tention of the court to conditions in
the arid country as they now exist and
| compared them with conditions n few
years ago. before the beneicent results
of irrigation made radical changes He
| described the Arkansas river, contend
ing that it had been broken river at
all times: that there is a stretch OF
country in western Kansas where the
| stream always goes dry, thus showing
| that what is done in Colorado in the
| way of diverting water in Colorado
| does not affect affect the flow OF the
stream in Kansas. He strengthened
this contention by quoting from Pixies
diary, written in 1906, that in TINS
| stretch Of country the Arkansas river
went cry 100 years ago, and from au-
thenticated reports he showed that the
river in this particular part of Kansas
had gone dry thirty-eisht years in sue
cession. He took up and discussed
| the testimony of witnesses from Kan
sas which showed that the flow of the
| Arkansas river for the past ten years
had been just as good as in earlier
| years. That the underilow upon
which Kansas laid so much stress is
not dependent on the surface flow OF
the river, this being the consensus OF
testimony of all experts of the govern
ment. The level of the underfow was
shown by these experts to be higher
than the level of the river at corre-
spending points and therefore does not
come from the river, but from general
drainage OF the great plains. kansas
witnesses themselves testified that the
underflow had not been affected by rea-
son of irrigation in Colorado, but that
from the return of water by seepage
from Colorado irrigation the volume OF
the underflow had been increased
rather than diminished. That Kan
sas lands are higher in price and
citizens of that state more prosperous
/, than ever before.
| .b, nv, tho taStimOnV of Sew
enty Kansas witnesses that many peo'
pie living in the Arkansas valley in
Kansas never heard of complaints
among their neighbors concerning di-
version of the stream in Colorado until
this suit was agitated.
Mr.. Dawson's address to the court
,, was comprehensive and was received
with marked attention.
Platt Rogers of Denver, who repre-
sents the ditch interests of the Arkan'
sas valley in Colorado, made an argu-
ment which, while intended to be in
! the especial interest of his clients
was also in general support OF Colora'
dos right to use the water within her
tended that irrigation is phase OF ma
i tional development which has origi
2 mated without reference to state lines
and represents the wants and necessi
/ ties of the arid West as aided and pro
e NOTED by the national government pol
icy is carried out.
\ d. C. Beaman, representing the Colo
. RADIO Fuel & Iron Company, also pre-
I scented many facts in support of Colora
/ do'sh right to use the water within her
borders. He quoted numerous explor
= ers to show the ..ndency of the Ar
!, kansas to go dry in the summer long
\ before irrigation was known in Colo
= RADIO, or even Colorado was known, and
= said that testimny to the contrary was