The Idaho Springs siftings-news., 1907-05-18
COLORADO WINS
KANSAS WATER CASE
is FINALLY DECIDED.
SUPREME COURT ENDS CASE
Progress Of Agricultural Develop
Ments Along the Arkansas River
No Longer Hindered

1
No Longer Hindered.
| Washington.-The somewhat famous
| case of the state of Kansas against the
, state of Colorado. by which the for
| mer sought to have the latter enjoined
| from direrting the waters of the Ar
| kansas river for irrigation purposes, or
| permitting its citizens to do so, was
! dismissed by the Supreme Court Of the
United States.
1t is impossible to exaggerate the
| Importance of the decision handed
| down by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Washington in the
famous Colorado Kansas water suit,
| The decision of the highest tribunal
in the land is a sweeping victory for
Colorado, and all litigation which has
| been dragging through the courts for
years, and which has cost the state
! hundreds of thousands of dollars, has
been disposed of.
While the suit was pending irriga-
! ton projects which had been planned.
| involving the expenditure of millions
| of dollars, Were tied up: land invest
ments along the Arkansas river had re-
| ceived a blow and much valuable land
| which had been placed under water by
the investment of vast sums of money
already expended by ditch companies
were in jeopardy. Now that Colorado
has won, irrigation and land projects will
| receive new impetus. and il Is stated
| by several attorneys that thousands, il
| not millions. of dollars will soon be
invested in the valley along the Ar
! kansas river where there has been lit
tie activity for so long,
| Attorney Platt Rogers. who was en-
| O n a int
| Colorado, and is probably as familiar
with it as any man in the state, said:
When the suit was brought by Kan
| sas some irrigation projects were pre-
| vented from being properly exploited
| and investments in the territory in
volved We're practically at a standstill
| AS the suit went on, however less and
| less regard was paid to it and many in
| vestors went ahead with their plans
| There were. however. many timid in
| vestors who will now be able to pro
| ceed without fear of being affected by
| litigation
irrigation Boom On.
1t is stated at the state engineers
| office in Denver that there was never
more activity in irrigation projects in
| Colorado than at the present time. In
vestors seemed to feel confident that
iHt luulHSS OF lHe supreme court III
| the big suit would be in Colorados
| favor, and as result, 1t Is said. appli-
| cations for irrigation and reservoir
sites are being filed at the rate of
| twenty per day
| The Colorado Kansas controversy
| when 1t was first raised by the state
| OF Kansas, excited more interest in le-
gal and scientific circles probably than
| any suit that has ever been in. the
| United States Supreme Court. The
| most learned and expert legal talent
| of the two states We're engaged in fight
| ing the case through its various st. ps
| and the expense TO the two stAtes
| which, under the decision, each pays
| their individual costs, will amount to
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
brief history OF the suit from its
| beginning, as detailed by Attorney
| Platt Rogers. follows:
| Just seven years to the day have
| passed from the beginning of the suit,
| until the final settlement. On May 13.
| 1901, the state OF Kansas made appli-
| cation to the United States Supreme
| Court for leave to file a bill of com
| plant against the state of Colorado
| On May 90, 1901, leave was granted
| and on the same day the complaint
was filed. The complaint set forth that
| the state of Colorado and owners of
| bitches in the state of Colorado along
| the Arkansas river We're so divcrting
| the waters of that river that the river
| no longer flowed into the state of Kan
| sas and that thereby Kansas lands
| were injured principally by lowering
| OF TIE so-called underfow lying under
| the entire valley, which in turn de
| prived crops raised in the valley lands
| OF sub-irrigation, the advantage of
| which they had formerly enjoyed. Va
| rious other elements of injury were al
legged, but these were practically lost
| sight of in the progress of the case.
October Is, 1901, the state of Colo
| RADIO filed its demurrer, together with
| briefs in support of same, in answer
| to which briefs were filed by the state
| of Kansas, and on February "a, 1902
the demurrer was orally argued in
| Washington. These arguments were
particularly able and eloquent. Colo
radios contentious were argued by Lu-
| ther NJ. Goddard, now a State Supreme
| Court justice; Platt Rogers. and for