The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1907-05-18
AN UNDECrsrvE DECISION.

The Supreme Court of the United
States lately rendered a decision of APP
parent Importance and interest, pri-
marily to the great agricultural West,
but to some extent affecting a number
of other States. The question, Invested
of all technicalities. is whether State
has the right to use the waters of
another. As glance at the map will
show. Colorado adjoins Kansas on the
West The great Arkansas River has
its sources in Colorado. but 1t flows
into Kansas and hundreds of miles of
its course is in the latter State. Passing
out at the South boundary of Kansas 1t
passes partly through Oklahoma and
entirely across the State of Arkansas
into the Mississippi.
So much for the natural and geo.
graphical features of the case Since
the practice of irrigation has become
such a prominent factor in the agricul-
, tural operations of much of the Western
country-so often made almost a deseft
by the absence of rain--the people of
Colorado have been consuming much
of the water. of the Arkansas River
and Kansas claimed that her own in
terests were not only jeopardized, but
were seriously injured by this impound-
ing of SO much of the water which, she
claims. should be allowed to come to
her own people. A suit was the result
which finally reached the Supreme
Court and an opinion has just been
rendered which is thus stated by a
contemporary:
Judge Brewer, who writes the opin-
tention of Kansas as to the diminu-
tion of water in the Arkansas River
through the drain made upon it in
Colorado is substantially correct. He
some hurt through the diversions of
the water by the 7neighboring State
But he finds that the benefits accruing
TO Coiorado have been large and In
Jury TO Kansas comparatively small.
Equity. therefore, in his view demands
the dismissal of the Kansas petition,
as Well as the dismissed of petition
filed by the United States as an inter-
vening litigant interested In preserving
the navigability of thesArkansas River.
Here seems to be direct and plain
opinion UNFOLDING the vital question
of States Rights, and were 1t not for
the fact that the decision as above
stated Is modified by other portions of
the same deliverapce 1t might be claim
ed that the highest judicial tribunal
of the Government has decided that one
State has a right to use all the water
that Is in it. If that should be ad-
mitted, what becomes of the rights of
the other State or States through which
river may run? States Rights would
get somewhat balled up in cases like
that, We rather suspect. However, the
court Is careful to leave a chance to
escape combinations, and our contem-
porary-we believe it is The Brooklyn
Eagle-adds:
While the opinion Is a substantial
victory for Colorado, the court is care
rul TO state that there are limits set
upon the diversion of Interstate water.
The action of dismissal Is taken with
out prejudice to the right of the plain
TIN to institute new proceedings when
material increase in the depletion of
the waters of the Arkansas by Colo
RADIO. Its corporations or citizens, the
substantial interests of Kansas are be-
ing injured to the extent of destroy
ing the equitable apportionment of
Dement'S between the two States re-
sulting from the flow of the river :"
The privilege of the Federal Govern
ment again to intervene Is likewise
recognized, and may be employed
whenever there is obvious danger that
the navigability of the Arkansas is
psing impaired by the action of State
officials in Colorado
Is not this leaving the doors of
prospective litigation open wider than
before? Plainly, the suit of Kansas
was dismissed by the court-not on the
ground that no injury had been done.
but because the injury SO far has not
been great, but the way is left omen
for future damage suits if Colorado
gets hoggish Who Is to decide when
one State Is using more than its share
OF a river? Seems to US that the case
is little better than 1t was In short.
the court seems to virtually say to
Colorado, You can use what water Won
please, but mustn't take too much" That
may have been the best the court
could do, but we submit that 1t is NOT
very decisive.
--~~eH-S-