State of Kansas v. State of Colorado
Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
Docket Number | O,No. 3,3 |
Citation | 206 U.S. 46,27 S.Ct. 655,51 L.Ed. 956 |
Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Complainant, v. STATE OF COLORADO et al., Defendants, The United States of America, Intervener. riginal |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On May 20, 1901, pursuant to a resolution passed by the legislature of Kansas (Kan. Laws 1901, chap. 425), and upon leave obtained, the state of Kansas filed its bill in equity in this court against the state of Colorado.To this billthe defendant demurred.After argument on the demurrerthis court held that the case ought not to be disposed of on the mere averments of the bill, and, therefore, overruled the demurrer without prejudice to any question defendant might present.Leave was also given to answer.185 U. S. 125, 46 L. ed. 838, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552.In delivering the opinion of the court the Chief justice disclosed in the following words the general character of the controversy, and the conclusions arrived at (p. 145, L. ed.p. 846, Sup. Ct. Rep.p. 559):
On August 17, 1903, Kansas filed an amended bill, naming as defendants Colorado and quite a number of corporations, who were charged to be engaged in depleting the flow of water in the Arkansas river.Colorado and several of the corporations answered.For reasons which will be apparent from the opinion the defenses of these corporations will not be considered apart from those of Colorado.On March 21, 1904, the United States, upon leave, filed its petition of intervention.The issue between these several parties having been perfected by replications, a commissioner was appointed to take evidence, and, after that had been taken and abstracts prepared, counsel for the respective parties were heard in argument, and upon the pleadings and testimony the case was submitted.
In order that the issue between the three principal parties, Kansas, Colorado, and the United States, may be fully disclosed, although by so doing we prolong considerably this opinion,—we quote abstracts of the pleadings and statements thereof made by the respective counsel.Counsel for Kansas say:
home.That when the state of Kansas was admitted into the Union it became the owner, for school purposes, of sections 16and36 of each congressional township, of which the complainant still owns many thousand acres, much of which borders on the Arkansas river.That by act of Congress of March 3, 1863[12 Stat. at L. 772, chap. 98], the complainant became the owner of each odd-numbered section of land in the Arkansas valley and has since conveyed the whole of this land for the purposes specified.That by the year 1868 the land in the Arkansas valley began to be taken by actual settlers, and by the year 1875 practically all the bottom lands in the east or lower half of the valley were entered and settled, and title obtained from the United States or the state of Kansas; and by the year 1882 the west or upper half of the valley was so entered and settled and like titles obtained.By the year 1873 a railroad was built through the entire length of the valley, and immediately after their settlement these bottom lands were extensively cultivated, large crops of agricultural products were raised, towns and cities sprang up, population rapidly increased, and by the year 1883 practically all the bottom lands of the Arkansas valley were in a state of successful and prosperous cultivation; that the waters of the Arkansas river furnished the foundation for this prosperity.These waters furnished a wholesome and ample supply for domestic purposes, for the watering of stock, for power for operating mills and factories, for saturating and subirrigating the bottom lands back to the uplands on either side of the river, so that crops thereon were not only bounteous but practically certain, and in the western portion of the valley these waters were appropriated and used for surface irrigation, to supplant the scanty rainfall in that region.That by reason of these uses of the waters of the Arkansas river, and the almost unvarying water level beneath these bottom lands being near the surface, the lands in the Arkansas valley in the state of Kansas were of great and permanent value to the owners and settlers thereon, and those upon the tax rolls of the state of Kansas yielded a large and increasing revenue to the complainant for state purposes.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Bugbee v. Fowle
...law is but the accumulated expressions of the various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just between individuals in respect to private disputes,’
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 97, 27 S.Ct. 655, 667, 51 L.Ed. 956, and but recently Mr. Justice Sutherland said: ‘The common law is not immutable, but flexible, and upon its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions.’ Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 487, 55 S.Ct. 296, 301, 79 L.Ed. 603, 95... -
Kansas v Colorado
...River has justified an exercise of our original jurisdiction. In Cook we even offered as an example of proper original jurisdiction one of the prior original suits between Kansas and Colorado, see id., at 393-394 (citing
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907)), and in Texas v. New Mexico we held that enforcement of an interstate water compact by means of a recovery of money damages can be within a State's proper pursuit of the "general public interest" in an original action,during the past century, most recently in Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. 673, 675-678 (1995), we have described the history and the importance of the river. For present purposes it suffices to note that two of those cases, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907), and Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 (1943), led to the negotiation of the Arkansas River Compact (Compact), an agreement between Kansas and Colorado that in turn was approved by Congress in 1949. See 63... -
Datawave Int'l, LLC v. Bluesource, Inc. (In re Procedo, Inc.)
...this union. It was adopted only so far as its principles were suited to the condition of the colonies: and from this circumstance, . . . what is the common law in one state, is not so considered in another"). See also
State of Kan. v. State of Colo., 206 U.S. 46, 86 (1907)(power of changing common law rule "undoubtedly belongs to each state"). 57. As to Claim Twelve, "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" on the part of Kvidera, Minnesota law requires the existence of a fiduciary duty and a breach... -
Arnold v. Aermotor, Inc.
...state, except the State of Louisiana, has adopted for itself and which it applies as its local law, subject, of course, to such changes as may have been provided by its statutes.
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 27 S.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U.S. 92, 21 S.Ct. 561, 45 L.Ed. 765; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. It has been held repeatedly...
-
Chapter 11 INTERJURISDICTIONAL GROUNDWATER ALLOCATION
...462 U.S. 554, 567 n. 13 (1983) (describing equitable apportionment as a "poor alternative to negotiation between the interested States").[14] 3 Waters and Water Rights, supra note 3, at § 45.01-.02. See also Kansas v. Colorado,
206 U.S. 46, 97-98, 117-18 (1907) (setting forth principle of "equality of right," but dismissing petition until Kansas can demonstrate injury to its "substantial interests"); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931) (balancing equities toLeshy, Interstate Groundwater Resources: The Federal Role, 14 Hastings W. -NW. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1475 (2008); Robert Glennon, Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America's Fresh Waters 26 (2002).[3] Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46(1907). See 3 Waters and Water Rights §§ 45.01-.02 (Amy K. Kelley ed., 3d ed. 2020).[4] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).[5] 3 Waters and Water Rights, supra note 3, at § 46.01 (listing 23 water apportionment compactsWashington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517, 524-26 (1936) (finding insufficient evidence of injury to justify regulation of stream diversions for irrigation where returns flowed underground before replenishing surface stream); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 114 (1907) (declining to regulate groundwater pumping that diminishes surface flows of the Colorado River in absence of showing of greater injury to Kansas).[19] Complaint for Equitable Apportionment and Injunctive Relief at ¶ 13... -
CHAPTER 11 WATER RIGHTS AND THE PUBLIC LANDS
...the West, as it owned the land in the public domain, it might still be the 'owner' of unappropriated water." Id. at 476. However, Professor Trelease thought this theory had been rejected in Kansas v. Colorado,
206 U.S. 46(1907) and was found to be inapplicable in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945). Id. See also, Star L. Waring & Kirk S. Samelson, Non-Indian Federal Reserved Water Rights, 58:4 DENV. L.J. 783 (1981). [8] United States v. New Mexico,... -
Wyoming v. Colorado: a Watershed Decision
...stream begins in one state and then flows, downstream, into another? Can the users in an upstream state, like Colorado, take all the water, leaving none for the downstream state? No, said the U.S. Supreme Court in Kansas v. Colorado [
206 U.S. 46, 100-18 (1907)]. The decision in that case laid the groundwork for the decision in Wyoming v. Colorado [259 U.S. 419 (1922)], another major western water law case. Although the principal parties in Wyoming v. Colorado were the two... -
Permission for a Fishing Expedition
...5. [6] Session Laws 1903, p. 233, ch. 112. [7] Hartman v. Tresise, 84 P. 685 (Colo. 1905). [8] Id. [9] Id. at 687 (Gunter, J., specially concurring). [10] Id. at 685. [11] Id. at 686. [12] Id. [13] Id. at 687. [14] Id. [15] Id. [16] See Kan. v. Colo.,
206 U.S. 46(1907). [17] Colo. Stat., ch. 98, p. 184 (1899). [18] Hartman, 84. P. at 688 (Gunter, J., specially concurring) (quoting Colo. Stat., Ch. 98, p. 188, Div. A, §16 (1899)). [19] Id. (quoting Colo....