OCR Text |
Show 520 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS the water of a stream for irrigation.13 But such use is subject to the rights of other riparian owners to a like reasonable use. What is reasonable must, in each instance, be determined in the light of total supply and total need of all riparian owners.14 It is also true that, beginning in 1886, Kansas, by statute, recognized appropriation for irrigation. But there is doubt whether the privilege is not restricted to riparian owners in some portions of the State. The Supreme Court of Kansas has held that, where a title originates in a grant antedating the Act of 1886, the right of appropriation is limited by the common law as to riparian rights, which are rights of property derived from the original patent or deed in the line of title.15 It seems that title to much of the land along the Arkansas Valley in western Kansas was originally granted or patented prior to 1886. The brief and argument of Kansas, while referring to the statutes of the State authorizing appropriation, make no reference to the Kansas decisions and no show- ing with respect to the right of non-riparian owners to appropriate waters against objection by other such owners. The official census figures submitted bearing upon population of the western counties of Kansas, and the agricultural production in them, give no support to a claim that the inhabitants have suffered for lack of arable and productive land. Generally speaking, the population has steadily increased and the agricultural production has also risen throughout the period in question. All these considerations persuade us that Kansas has not sustained her allegations that Colorado's use has materially increased, and that the increase has worked a serious detriment to the substantial interests of Kansas. A decree should be entered enjoining the further prosecution of the Finney County Association's suits, and dismissing the prayers of both States for other relief. The parties may submit such a decree. NOTES For the decree referred to in the last paragraph of this opinion, see 322 U.S. 708 (1944). For the subsequent Arkansas River Compact (Colorado-Kansas), see pp. 3ff, ante. 13 Campbell v. Grimes, 62 Kan. 503, 64 P. 62. 14 Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206. 80 P. 571. ™Frizell v. Bindley, 144 Kan. 84, 58 P. 2d 95. Cf. Smith v. Miller, 147 Kan. 40, 75 P 2d273. |