WSP03052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C\" -5- "':-"l. .. ~~' c..,) ~ ~ THE OPINION 2. ReI Depletious in Colorado. On the question, ter':Jed "vital" by the Court, whether Kansas has made good her olaim to relief, founded on the oharge that Colorado has, sinoe the earlier (19CY7) decision, inoreased its deFletion of the water sup- ply to the material darnage:of K~sas' substantial interests, the severnl oon- siderations oited in the Opinion persuaded the Court that Kansas has not sus- tained her allegations. , Those considerations oited in the Opinion, suoh as offioial oensus figures showing increased population and agrioult ural produotion, indicating an absenoe of injury to western Kansas, need not herein be disoussed. In connection with the allegations of Kansas, that inoreased irrigated acre- ages in Colorado were evidence of inoreased,depletions of the water supply of the river, the Court pointed out that. (a) if acreage under irrigation is e:ny measure of depletion, Colorado oannot have depleted the usable water supply passing into Kansas, for the irrigated aoreages in western Kansas have also increased, and, proportionately, to a greater extent) and (b) if acreage in Colorado has exp:>.nded under the ditohes on the main stem of the river, it has dona so because of an improved duty of water, for, during the period since 1905 there has been no material inoreaoo in diversions, river @Rins due to return seepage lwve increased, the consumptive use of water has declined, and relative ly the stream flows have improved. Other considerations oi ted in the Opinion relate to Ste,teline flows. Regarding the diminution alleged by Kansas, based on comparisons between es- timated flows of the period 1895 to 1907 and the subsequent measured flows. the Court noted that even on such a basi s, the average annual diminution