The Greeley tribune., 1907-05-16
v.NsAs-COLORADO CASE IN
FAVOR OF LATTER
1rst;ce Brewer of Supreme U. s.
corrt Hands Down Unanl-
nous Opinion of Highest
Tribunal

United StaleS suP'SS
orsd the unanimous opinion OF the
.orrr TODAY in the case Of the state
of Kansas against the state OF Colo
,ado dismissing without prejudice
10 the right of the state of Kansas to
rsnsw its petition, and also dism1s-
sing the petition of Intervention on
the mart of the United States with
out prejudice on its part to take such
steps as may be necessary to preserve
and improve the navigation Of the
Arkansas river.
The court finds as a question OF
fact that 10000 people Of Colorado
are being sustained upon 300, 600
acres Of irrigated lands, whose pros
perity, involving many millions OF
dollars, would be destroyed If the
court denied the right of the citizens
Of Colorado to use the water OF the
streams for irrigation purposes. The
court finds as a matter OF fact that
irrigation in Colorado has depleted
the fow of water into Kansas and
that it has worked some detriment
TO southwestern Kansas, but that 1t
has not proved of serious detriment
to the Kansas counties bordering on
the Arkansas river. The court
denies the contention of Colorado
that there are two rivers or broken
river. The court also denies the
contention of the state OF Kansas
that the underflow constitutes SUBJ
surface stream.
The following legal points were
settled by the opinion:
That the court has jurisdiction !;
that congress has no power to legis-
late dividing the waters of an inter-
state waterway, congress having no
control except as to navigation; that
land belonging to the federal govern
ment within state is subject to the
law of that state.
The opinion also upholds state
laws relating to the general reclama-
ton of arid lands within the state
and declares the federal authority
|nonnot supercede them, and that II
Is for the state to exercise full juris-
diction In determining whether the
common law rule OF RIPARIAN owner
ship or the doctrine of appropriation
of water for irrigation purposes shall
prevail. At the same time the court
contends that, question arising be-
tween two states, each applying a
different rule, as to the rules just
mentioned the supreme court, and
not congress, shall determine.
Tie court denies that the state of
Kansas Is entitled to all the waters
Of the Arkansas river as riparian
right; it also denies the claim of
Colorado that she has the right to
Appropriate all the water OF the river
in her borders, as a matter of state
sovereignty, to the detriment OF the
state OF Kansas; also, that Kansas,
having passed law, which its courts
recognizing the right of ap.
Of waters for irrigation
cannot complain when the
same rule is applied as between that
state and Colorado.
1t Is the best opinion that Kansas
has lost and Colorado won. The
court practically holds that only by
applying the waters of the streams
of the arid regions to the lands
therein can the present development
be sustained, or any future develop.
nent obtained.
Justice Brewers opinion concluded
IS follows:
Summing up our conclusions, we
IRE of the opinion that the conten-
lion of Colorado OF two streams can.
1ot ba sustained; that the appro.
1riation of the waters OF the Ar.
KANSAS by Colorado for purposes of
th1SoSAoo Aluo ululIlSEeu the flow
II water into the. state of Kansas;
hat the result of that appropriation
has been the reclamation of large
Ireas In Colorado, transforming
of acres into fertile fields
md rendering profitable their occupa.
ion and cultivation when otherwise
hey would have continued barren
md unoccupied; that, while the in.
luence Of such diminution has been
II preceptible Injury to portions of
he Arkansas valley In Kansas, mar.
,icularly those portions closest to the
Colorado line, yet to the great body
u that valley 1t has worked little II
my detrlment, and, regarding the
interests OF both states and the rIpbt
II each to receive benefits THROUGH
irrigation and In any other manner
rom the waters Of this stream. we