OCR Text |
Show ARKANSAS RIVER LITIGATION 509 as it passes through the State of Kansas, and it seems to be the con- tention on the part of Kansas that beneath the surface there is, as it were, a second river with the same course as that on the surface, but with a distinct and continuous flow as of a separate stream. We- are of the opinion that the testimony does not warrant the finding of such second and subterranean stream. If the bed of a stream is not solid rock, but earth through which water will percolate, and as alleged in plaintiff's bill, the "valley of the river in the State of Kansas is composed of sand covered with alluvial soil," undoubtedly water will be found many feet below the surface, and the lighter the soil the more easily will it find its way downward and the more water will be discoverable by wells or other modes of exploring the subsur- face. Undoubtedly, too, in many places there may be corresponding to the flow on the surface a current beneath the surface, but the presence of such subsurface water, even though in places of considerable amount and running in the same direction, is something very different from an independent subsurface river flowing continuously from the Colo- rado line through the State of Kansas. It is not properly denomi- nated a second and subsurface stream. It is rather to be regarded as merely the accumulation of water which will always be found beneath the bed of, any stream whose bottom is not solid rock. Nat- urally, the more abundant the flow of the surface stream and the wider its channel the more of this subsurface water there will be. If the entire volume of water passing down the surface was taken away the subsurface water would gradually disappear, and in that way the amount of the flow in the surface channel coming from Colorado into Kansas may affect the amount of water beneath the subsurface. As subsurface water, it percolates on either side as well as moves along the course of the river, and the more abundant the subsurface water the further it will reach in its percolations on either side as well as more distinct will be its movement down the course of the stream. The testimony, .therefore, given in reference to this sub- surf ace water, its amount and, its flow bears only upon the question of the diminution of the flow from Colorado into Kansas caused by the appropriation in the former State of the waters for the purposes of irrigation. Equally untenable is the contention of Colorado that there are really two rivers, one commencing in the mountains of Colorado and terminating at or neap the state line, and the other commencing at or near the j)lace where the former ends, and from springs and branches starting a new stream to flow onward through Kansas and Oklahoma towards the Gulf of Mexico. From time immemorial the existence of a single continuous river has been recognized by geographers, explorers and travelers. That there is a great variance in the amount of water flowing down the channel at different seasons of the year and in different years is undoubted; that at times the entire bed of the channel has been m places dry is evident from the testimony. In that way it may be called a broken river. But; this is a fact com- mon to all streams having their origin in a mountainous resrion, and whose volume is largely affected by the melting of the mountain snows. Thus, from one of complainant's exhibits furnished by the United States Geological Survey, the mean monthly flow at Canon City at |