The La Jara chronicle., 1907-05-24
Civil Engineering Department.

the supreme court of the United
States in the Kansas Colorado
case, for it is realized that the at
tack of Kansas was one of serious
import, not only to the prosperity
of the Arkansas valley, but to Colo
RADIO and the whole irrigation
West. The college also feels that
the decision of the court has sus-
tained its position in the matter.
While it has been realized that the
case was one of extreme serious
ness. the conditions were such that
it was better to expect some mis-
understanding than to create alarm
by unwise decision.
The case was brought by citizens
of Kansas living in the vicinity of
0Nichita. They did not use water
for irrigation-never had, and
never expected to. Their essen
tial contention was that the use of
water in Colorado had decreased
the flow in the stream and that
therefore Kansas was damaged.
She contented. however. that she
had the legal right for the water to
flow through Kansas whether it
was to be used by the citizens of
Kansas or not. 1t was claimed
that IA large region near Wichita
was supplied from the Arkansas
river through sub-irrigation, or
underfiow as they termed it, and
that the decrease in the river af-
fected large area and rendered it
less productive. Colorado, on the
other hand, contented that Kansas
had not been damaged: that, in
the first place, the river has been
dry from the earliest period, long
before irrigation was practiced:
also that the water in Kansas
originated mostly from Kansas
streams, and not from Colorado
SHOWS; and SO far as there was
failure, it was more from the local
failure of rainfall and from absorp-
lion by settled area. The gov
ernment appeared as intervenor,
for she was affected through the
effect on the reclamation act, and
also wanted to obtain control of
interstate streams. This was con-
tention almost as much to be feared
as the original Kansas contention.
Those acquainted with the case
have not feared the ultimate result
the matter could be presented
"i, he facts SO produced us to
la. the court acquainted with
til. actual conditions.
Ths haracter of such western
streams rs the Arkansas river is so
different from the eastern streams
and the facts known to relatively
SO few that they seem incredible.
1t is. therefore. much qualification
to Colorado that the court has
found that Kansas is not mater
tally damaged. This follows the
line of reasoning and the outline
which was prepared by the writer
us report and guide for the at
torney general of Colorado in 1902,
at the very inception of the case.
D The case represents the inevi-
table conflict between the right to
use water for irrigation and the
doctrine of riparian rights. The
latter has been recognized as the
common law doctrine and is rooted
in the customs of the East. 1t
was inevitable that the conflict
should occur just as the conflict
between the rights to irrigate and
the rights Of navigation should
conflict. Centuries of decisions
have recognized the riparian doc
triue, and while it does not apply
to our part of the country. yet ju-
dicial decisions have so recognized
it that a conflict between the two
is necessarily one to cause serious
consideration. The people of the
ctnta have NOT ,rpnernlly recopnize1