Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9 <br /> <br />the rule of prior appropriation sometimes should be applied to develop arid <br /> <br />lands, one state had no right tc abuse the rule to the extent that it destroyed <br /> <br /> <br />the rights and "ell-being of another state. 34 <br /> <br />In its opinion of 1902, the Supreme Court did not ma)ce a judgement in this <br /> <br />,.; <br /> <br />phase of the litigation, sayin~ "that in view of the intricate questions arising <br /> <br />on the record, "e are constrained to forbear proceedinq until all the facts <br />bef h. d 35 <br />are ore us on t e eVl ence. <br /> <br />Six years later Kansas brought up the CcJse Cl9uin, presenting the evidence <br /> <br />to the; Supreme Court that it hoped would demonstrate thilt Colorado' 5 continuing <br /> <br />overuse of the Arkansas 11ilS directly injuring KansCls and the irrigators who <br /> <br />relied upon this water. In its opinion, the CJurt cited evidence from previous <br /> <br />cases in Kansas to support the contention that Kansas did recognize the right <br /> <br />tc divert waters from a river's main stream for irrigation purposes, as long as <br /> <br />an "equitable division" existed between the riparian users. Therefore, said the <br /> <br />\1 <br />~ <br />" <br />1 <br /> <br />court, Kansas <br /> <br />.j <br /> <br />...cannot complain if the same rule is administered <br />bet"een herself and a sister state. And this is es- <br />pecially true when the waters are, except for domestic <br />purposes, practically useful only for purposes of <br />irrigation. 36 <br /> <br />.' <br />" <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />The Ccurt also warned Kansas that if strict riparian principles were upheld to <br /> <br />stop the Colorado irrigators' diversions, Kansas would in turn have to allow the <br /> <br />Arkansas waters to flow through its state virtually untouched into O]clahoma.37 <br /> <br />One point of contention came up in Kansas v. Colorado of 1907 that "ould <br /> <br />arise in the Wyoming v. Colorado Ii tigation bet11een 1911 and 1940 and would also <br /> <br />be considered in the negotiations of 1947; this regarded the question of whether <br /> <br />a state could obtain a water right on an interstate stream on the grounds that <br /> <br />} <br /> <br />-~, -:- <br /> <br />.. <br />