State of Kansas v. State of Colorado
Citation | 206 U.S. 46,27 S.Ct. 655,51 L.Ed. 956 |
Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
Docket Number | O,No. 3,3 |
Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Complainant, v. STATE OF COLORADO et al., Defendants, The United States of America, Intervener. riginal |
Court | United States 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 bill the defendant demurred. After argument on the demurrer this 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 16 and 36 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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rank v. Krug, Civ. No. 685-ND
...1815; State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado, 1922, 259 U.S. 419, 42 S.Ct. 552, 66 L.Ed. 999; State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 1907, 206 U.S. 46, 27 S.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956; State of Colorado v. State of Kansas, 1943, 320 U.S. 383, 64 S.Ct. 176, 88 L.Ed. 116; U. S. v. Humboldt, etc., Co......
-
Water of Hallett Creek Stream System, In re, S.F. 25133
...plenary control of the water within their territory on an equal footing with the original thirteen states. (See Kansas v. Colorado (1907) 206 U.S. 46, 92-95, 27 S.Ct. 655, 665-666, 51 L.Ed. 956; United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., supra, 174 U.S. at pp. 702-703, 709, 19 S.Ct. at p......
-
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., Case No.: 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD)
...658, 67 L.Ed. 1117 (1923) ; Georgia v. Tenn. Copper Co. , 206 U.S. 230, 27 S.Ct. 618, 51 L.Ed. 1038 (1907) ; and Kansas v. Colorado , 206 U.S. 46, 27 S.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956 (1907) ). The Court held that "Georgia may maintain this suit as parens patriae acting on behalf of her citizens." Id......
-
Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
...only incidental, incurring no liability. Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217, 48 L.Ed. 414, 24 S.Ct. 238; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 51 L.Ed. 956, 27 S.Ct. 655; Tempel v. United States [248 U.S. 121, 39 S.Ct. 56, 63 L.Ed. 162], supra. And there is characterization of the Lynah Case......
-
Artificial Waterways in International Water Law: An American Perspective.
...previously hydrologically separate. ROBIN KUNDIS CRAIG, ROBERT W. ABLER, & NOAH D. HALL, WATER LAW 170 (2017)); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 113-14 (1907) (applying equitable principles to a claim by Kansas that Colorado's construction of irrigation canals reduced the Arkansas River......
-
State Water Ownership and the Future of Groundwater Management.
...v. Tennessee, 142 S. Ct. 31 (2021). The Court decided the first surface water dispute between states in 1907. See Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (41.) Report of the Special Master at 4-5, Mississippi v. Tennessee, 142 S. Ct. 31 (No. 22O143). (42.) See id. (43.) See id. at 2-4. (44.) See id......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...v. EPA); Woolhandler & Collins, supra note 18, at 450–55 (tracing “police power standing” to Tennessee Copper). 72. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 118 (1907). This was the same opinion in which the Court suggested (in dicta) that Congress lacked Article I authority to legislate the partie......
-
Divvying Atlantis: who owns the land beneath navigable manmade reservoirs?
...center that is visually harmonious with the water. See City of Madison v. State, 83 NW.2d 674, 678 (Wis. 1957). (15.) Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 93-94 (1906). (16.) Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). (17.) Id. at 453. (18.) See, e.g., Arizona Cent. for Law v. Ha......