| OCR Text |
Show 512 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS The court denied Kansas' contention that she was entitled to have the stream flow as it flowed in a state of nature. It denied Colorado's claim that she could dispose of all the waters within her borders, and owed no obligation to pass any of them on to Kansas. It declared that as each State had an equality of right each stood before the court on the same level as the other; that inquiry was not confined to the ques- tion whether any portion of the river waters were withheld by Colo- rado but must include the effect of what had been done upon the conditions in the respective States; and that, the court must adjust the dispute on the basis of equality of rights to secure, so far as possible, to Colorado, the benefits of irrigation, without depriving Kansas of the benefits of a flowing stream. The measure of the reciprocal rights and obligations of the States was declared to be an equitable apportionment of the benefits of the river. The court added that, before the develop- ments in Colorado consequent upon irrigation were to be destroyed or materially affected, Kansas must show not merely some technical right but one which carried corresponding benefits. On examination of the proofs, the court concluded that diversions authorized by Colorado embraced more water than the total flow at Canon City. It found, however, that no clear showing was made as to what surplus water, if any, was contributed by the tributaries below that point or as to the proportion df the diverted water returned to the river by seepage. The opinion described the diversions in each State, analyzed the use made of the water and the benefits derived from it in each, considered population tables and agricultural statistics bearing upon the growth of the communities adjacent to the river in each, and stated conclusions, now material, as follows: That the result of Colorado's appropriations had been beneficial reclamation of many acres; that, while the influence of Colorado's diversions had been of perceptible injury to portions of the Arkansas valley in Kansas, yet to the great body of the valley the diminution of flow had worked little, if any, detriment; that regarding the interests of both States, and the right of each to receive benefits through irrigation and otherwise from the waters of the stream, the court was not satisfied that Kansas had made out a case entitling it to a decree. The court added that if deple- tion by Colorado continued to increase there would come a time when Kansas might justly say that there was no longer an equitable distribu- tion of benefits and might rightly call for relief against Colorado and her citizens. Accordingly the bill was dismissed without prejudice to future action by Kansas. The taking of evidence ended June 16, 1905, and the decision of the court was announced May 13, 1907. October 30, 1909, the Finney County Water Users' Association, which maintained the so-called Farmers' Ditch in Kansas, applied to a Kansas court for adjudication of priorities as between various Kansas users of the river water. One of the defendants, the United States Irrigating Company, removed the cause to the United States District Court. A consent decree was entered May 16,1911, which pro- vided for the allocation and rotation of use amongst certain, but not all, of the Kansas ditches, including the Farmers' Ditch. It was, how- ever, provided that the settlement should remain binding upon the parties only until the adjudication of other litigation next to be noticed. |
