The Kendrick gazette. [volume] (Kendrick, Idaho) 1892-1968, 1907-06-07
is I
VALID
IRRIGATION RECLAMA-
TION ACT O. X.
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT HAS
NOT DECLARED 1T UNCON-
STITUTIONAL.

Certain newspapers have raised a
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 |
fear is expressed that the national ir-
rigation reclamation act may be ad-
Judged unconstitutional if ever it !
comes before the court of last appeal
on an issue such as was present in the
Colorado cause. Ex-senator
Turner of Washington is credited with
raising the question.
Such fears are groundless; 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 it's 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
be to seriously interfere with the de-
: velopment of the entire system of IT.
rigation projects throughout the west;
and even although careful examination
of the law satisfies the government
that those fears are groundless, 1t is
: not unlikely that the raising of the
r question will be embarrassing in future
1 litigation involving the reclamation
4 service.
However, the supreme courts decl
d sion is pleasing to the officials who are
= interested in the reclamation OF arlt
S lands. The court denied the contention
S of Kansas for the common law riparian
n rights, and it denied the contention o
Colorado that it had sovereign and eX
: elusive power over the waters within
Il it's limits with the right to approprl
= ate all of it without reference to rights
d in adjoining commonwealth.
e The decision sets forth that the ut1l
2 )ization of the water in Colorado ha
lbeen so beneficial that the alleged in
d Jury in Kansas, admitted in part, l
L relatively so small that it may be re
II garded as negligible, because no inJur
n has been proven in the Arkansa
4 river east of the Colorado line.
n The court comedies that both state
A. have the right to use the water of tn
r Arkansas river, does not make def
nitive statement as to what thos
rights are, as to quantity or as to tn
e principle governing it's use, and is col
h tent to say:
g eff the depletion of the waters of tn
I'd river by Colorado continues to =
s. crease, there will come time whe
III Kansas may justly say that there
no longer an equitable division OF bel
efits and may rightfully call for relic
against the action of Colorado, its co
porations and citizens in appropriatln
m the waters of the Arkansas for irrig
ton purposes"