Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1907-05-16
Supreme Court Refuses to EnjOin
Colorado From Diverting Wa
tiers Of Arkansas Rivers.
SUFFERED LITTLE DAMAGE
n In Future II 10 shown Water u
PsrceptIbIy Diminished Court
Would Again Take Up
the Matter.

what famous case Of the state o
Kansas against the state Of Colorado
By which the former sought to hav'
the latter enjoined from diverting thu
waters Of the Arkansas river for irri'
cation purposes, or permitting III
citizens to do so, was dismissed BY
the supreme court Of the United States
Monday. The announcement OF the
courts decision was made by Justice
Brewer who said that the dismissal
was without prejudice to the right Of
Kansas to serve It's petition whenever
It can be shown that that state Is be-
ing substantially injured. The in
teryening petition Of the Upited States
also was dismissed.
The case has been on the court
docket since 1901, when Kansas first
lodged its bill Of complaint In that
document 1t was alleged that the
numerous irrigation bitches in Colora-
do had caused such a great and per
manent diminution Of the volume OF
water as to render q once navigable
stream almost totally dry, to greatly
diminish the power for manufactur-
ing purposes, to lower to the extent
of about five feet the surface of the
underflow Of the stream and to en-
tirely cut off the supply Of water
for irrigation In western Kansas. The
loss was reported to be incalcuIable.
Kansas asked for an injunction, to be
directed especially against future ap-
preparations and to recognize the prin-
clple Of priority Of right on the part
Of Kansas bitches organized before
bitches in Colorado. The common
law doctrine relative to riparian
rights was q strong dependence OF
the complaining state. and 1t was
strenuously urged that under this
right waters Of the river could not
be diverted to distant lands, az is
done under such extensive systems
Of irrigation as prevail along the Ar
kansas in Colorado. Colorado on the
other hand, commended for its right to
the exclusive control of the waters
within her own boundary, refused to
acknowledge navigability Of the Ar
kansas at any time. pleaded the prac-
tice Of diversion under irrigation law
the world over, dwelt upon the i'm
mense interests that have accumulat-
ed unquestioned by Kansas, and urged
that through seepage much of the
irrigation water finds its way back
into the body Of the stream. The
United States was represented In the
hearing in the case as an intervenor
Almost year was passed In taking
testimony. Three hundred and fifty
witnesses were heard. No only the
two states and the national govern.
ment but many private corporations
were heard in connection with the
suit, much general interest was arous-
ed because Of the large interests at
stake and Of the general principles
involved. 1t was recognized as the |
first great irrigation legal contest
Justice Brewers opinion concluded |
as follows:
Summing up our conclusions, we
are Of the opinion that the contention
of Colorado Of two streams can not
be sustained; that the appropriations
Of the waters Of the Arkansas by Col
orado for purposes Of irrigation has
the flow Of water into the
state of Kansas; that the result of
that appropriationehas been the re-
clamation Of large areas in Colorado,
thousands Of acres into
fertile fields and rendering profitable
their occupation and cultivation when
otherwise they would have continued
barren and unocccpied; that while
the influence of such dlminution has
been of perceptible injury to portions
of the Arkansas valley in Kansas,
particularly those portions closest
to the Colorado line, yet to the great
body Of the valley 1t has worked little
II any detriment and regarding the In
terests Of both states and the right
Of each to receive benefits through
irrigation and in any other manner
from the waters Of this stream, We are
not satisfied that Kansas has made
out a case emitting It to a decree.
At the same time II Il obvious that
Il 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
IL no longer an equitable division Of
benefits and may rightfully call for
relief against the action Of Colorado.
Its corporations and citizens IN appro-
the waters Of the Arkansas
ior irrigation purpSsus.
''Ths decree which, therefore, will
be entered, win be the dismissing