Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1907-06-08
is
VALID
IRRIGATION RECLAMA-
TION ACT o. X.
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT HAS
NOT DECLARED 1T UNCON-
STITUTlONAL.

Certain newspapers have raised a
question as to the constitutionality of
the irrigation reclamation act. and
base their statements on the decision
of the federal supreme court in the
case of the state of Kansas against the
state of Colorado of May 10, 1907, in
which was involved the right to use
the waters of the Arkansas river. The
fear is expressed that the national ir-
rigation reclamation act may be adj
judged unconstitutional if ever it
comes before the court of last appeal
on an issue such as was present in the
KansasColorado cause. Ex-senator
Turner of Washington is credited with
raising the question.
Such fears are groundless; such
statements apparently are incorrect.
The supreme court made no such state
ments and has not prejudged the
status of the reclamation act in any
way. The fears that reclamation pro-
jects in Washington, Oregon and Ida
no might be crippled are allayed.
Careful inquiry among the govern
ment departments which are vitality in
terested warrants the following posi-
tive statement.
In deciding the Kansas Colorado
case, the supreme court used an illus
tration to show that the congress is
restrained in its powers by the federal
constitution; and, in discussing the
possibility of the exercise of congress
sional legislative power beyond con-
stitutional limitations in reference to
the arid lands of the nation, said:
Nor do we understand that hitherto
the congress has acted in disregard of
this limitation"
This would seem clearly to indicate
that the supreme court did not intend
to call in question the validity of the
reclamation act; and that the irriga-
ton law was not in any manner in
volyed in the case before the court is
quite plainly apparent.
Were the fears referred to proven
to be we'll founded the result would
be to seriously interfere with the de-
velopment of the entire system of ir-
rigation projects throughout the west;
and even although careful examination
of the law satisfies the government
that those fears are grOundless, it is
not unlikely that the raising of the
question will be embarrassing in future
litigation involving the reclamation
service.
However, the supreme courts deci-
sion is pleasing to the officials who are
interested in the reclamation of arid
lands. The court denied the contention
of Kansas for the common law riparian
rights, and it denied the contention of
Colorado that it had sovereign and eX-
elusive power over the waters within
its limits with the right to appropri-
ate all of it without reference to rights
in adjoining commonwealth.
The decision sets forth that the util-
ization of the water in Colorado has
been so beneficial that the alleged in
jury in Kansas, admitted in part, is
relatively so small that it may be re-
garded as negligible, because no injury
has been proven in the Arkansas
river east of the Colorado line.
The court comedies that both states
have the right to use the water OF the
Arkansas river, does not make a def
nitive statement as to what those
rights are, as to quantity or as to the
principle governing its use, and is con.
| tent to say:
IF the depletion of the waters of the
river by Colorado continues to in
crease, there will come a time when
Kansas may justly say that there is
no longer an equitable division of ben
efts and may rightfully call for relief
against the action of Colorado, its cor
porations and citizens in appropriating
the waters of the Arkansas for irriga-
ton purposes"