Rocky Ford enterprise., 1906-12-28
KANSAS'CASEBAD
WEAK CONTENTION BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.
ARGUMENT OF C0L0RADANs
Kansas Wants Riparian Rights ~
Against coIorado-Yet she Would
Use the Water Herseif-HIstory os
the River Brought Out.

Washington.-In the Kansas Colo
RADIO case before tho Supreme Court
Tuesday Judge Ashbaugh finished hin
argument In behalf pf Kansas and was
followed ey n. II. Loomls. who closed
the case for that state.
Judge Ashbaueh devoted his time to
further analysis Of testimony tending
to show that Kansas had suffered ir-
reparablc injury by reason Of diversion
of the waters OF the Arkansas for irri.
CATION purposes In Colorado.
| He declared Colorado has approprf-
ated 1000 cubic feet OF water per sec.
and. which practically takes all tho
supply OF the stream In the irrigation
season. He placed the total damages
suffered b. Kansas In the past fifteen
years at not less Than $75.0O0.0O0. iic
said Kansas demands a fair division or
the water Of the Arkansas river. which
would not be less than 100 cubic feet q
| second.
Mr.. Loomis took up legal features OF
the case ana was proceeding finely
with his argument sustaining riparian
rights. when he WIS interrupted by
some pertinent inquiries from Justice
White.
One OF these was to ask how Kansas
could staad for the common law doc
trine Of riparian rights. which requires
that all water taken from river
| should be returned to II without losa
In quantity. and at the same time con-
tinuc to divert the waters Of tho
| stream In western Kansas for !rriga-
| iion. and object to her sister state do
Ing the same thing. This inquiry en-
| barrasssd LoomIs. who failed TO an
swcr II. and went ON with his legal ar-
Humcnt.
Justice White apparently was not
satisfied and continued his Interrupt
tion. saying:
.Thc contention Of Kansas leads to
| n curious position ON the part OF mat
state. II II stands for riparian doc
trin.s, II can not irrignic itself. On
the other hand. II II stands for the doc
| trinc Of prior appropriation. why
should II object To Colorado using tho
wntcr under the same docirinc?-
Again Mr.. i.oomis cvndcd the nrgu-
mcnt directly and branchcd Into
phase Of the subject entirely Irrelevant
to the Inquiries proponndcd by tho
Justice.
Clyde C. Dawson opened the nrru-
ment for Colorado. He called the at
tcntion Of the court to conditions In
| the arid country M they now exist ana
compnrcd them with conditions n few
years ago. before the bcnchccnt results
, Of irrigation made radical changes. He
! described tho Arkansas river. contend
i ing that Il had been broken river at
| nIl times; that there In a stretch OF
/ country In western Kansas where tho
| s,rcam always goes dry. thus showing
| that what In done In Colorado IN inc
way OF divcrting wntcr In Colorado
does not affect affect the !ow al tho
stream In Kansas. lie strengthened
this contention by quoting from Pixies
diary. written In 1906. that In this
stretch of country the Arkansas river
/ went ary 100 years ago. and from au-
| thcnticatcd reports he showed that tho
river In this particular part OF Kansas
had gone dry thiriy.cight years in sue.
ccss!on. He took up and discus,iscd
the Testimony OF witnesses from Kan
sas which showed that the now OF tho
Arkansas river for the past ten years
/ had been Just as good ns In carrier
years. That the undcrflow upon
which Kansns laid SO much stress III
not dcpcndont on the surface flow OF
/ the river, this being the consensus OF
Testimony OF NIL experts Of the govern.
ment The level OF the undcrfiow was
shown by these experts to be higher
than the level OF the river Mt corrc-
spending points and therefore does not
come from the river. but from Eencrai
drainage Of the great plains. Kansas
| 'so'ih'" 'aisss '''N
undert,ow had not been affected by rcn-
son of irrigation In Colorado. but that
from the return Of water by scepaye
from Colorado irrigation the volume OF
the undcrfiow had been Increased
rather than diminished. That Kan
sas lands are higher In price and
citizens o. that state more prosperous
than ever before.
| He showed by the testimony OF sew
enty Kansas witnesses that many peo.
ple living In the Arkansas valley IN
Kansas never heard OF cohnIhin,s
/ among their ncighbors concerning ui-
version of the stream In Colorado un.l
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 Arkar-
sas valley in Colorado, made an argu-'
mcnt which. while intended to be irA
the especial intere5t of his clients
was also in general support Of Colora-'
dos right to use the water within her
tended that irrigation is a phase OF ma
tional development which has origi.
mated without reference to state lines
/ and represents the wants and nccesst.
ties of the arid West as aided and pro-
NOTED by the national government pol
Icy is carried out.
| ID. c. Beaman, representing the Colo
RADIO Fuel & Iron Company. also pre-
sented 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
without value unless It covered the en-
tire length of the stream in Colorado.
nenver Poetoffiee Site