Camas Prairie chronicle. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1901-1917, 1907-06-07
IRRIGATION LAW OK.
QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO.
ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Inc Kansas-coIoradO Case Apart-De-
oisIOn on That Appeal Has No Bear.
ing on the Project in Northwestern
states-ReaI Effect of the De.
cislon.

Certain newspapers have raised 3
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
rear is expressed that the national ir
rlgatlon reclamation act may be ad
judged unconstitutional if ever il
comes before the court of last appeal
on an issue such as was present in the
Kansas-Colorado cause. Ex-senator
Turner of Washington is credited with
raising the question.
Such fears are groundIess; 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
volved in the case before the court is
quite plainly apparent.
Were the fears referred to proven
to be we'll founded the result would
he 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 arit
lands. The court denied the contention
of Kansas for the common law riparian
rights, and it denied the contention O.
Colorado that it had sovereign and ex
elusive power over the waters within
it's 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, il
relatively so small that it may be re
garded as negligible, because no injur!
has been proven in the Arkansa
river east of the Colorado line.
The court comedies that both state
have the right to use the water of tn
Arkansas river, does not make a def
nitive statement as to what thos
rights are, as to quantity or as to tn
principle governing it's use, and is con
tent to say:
eff the depletion of the waters of tn,
river by Colorado continues to in
crease, there will come time whel
Kansas may justly say that there i
no longer an equitable division of ben
efits and may rightfully call for relic
against the action of Colorado, its col
porations and citizens in appropriatini
the waters of the Arkansas for irriga