plant would require the expenditure of considerable money to put it in shape for efficient operation. The well pits were not walled up when the plant was constructed. Earth from the walls of these pits is constantly caving off and falling into the wells below. In the construction of these wells eight feet of dry sand was encountered just above the water table. On account of the difficulty of making a tunnel through this sand for the suction pipe, the pipe was laid above the sand and about eight feet above the water table. Because of this and the fact that it was necessary to set the pump several feet above the suction pipe, it is impossible to draw the water down in the wells more than nine or ten feet below the normal water level. This draw-down is not sufficient to develop the economical capacity of the wells, and they do not yield enough water with this draw-down to allow the pump to be operated at its most economical capacity. Some information on the cost of pumping water, but more particularly concerning crop-producing power of water, in this locality might be useful. The country adjacent to this plant, however, does not have a plentiful supply of water, and the depth is uniformly great. Neither the price of land nor the density of population are such as to indicate that any real irrigation development can be expected there, and it is doubtful if the necessary expense to carry on irrigation demonstrations to encourage irrigation on this sparsely settled high land would be justified as long as the larger part of the five million acres of shallowwater land in the state is not under irrigation.

The Weskan plant is of more interest in that not only does it pump from the greatest depth or have the greatest lift of any irrigation pumping plant in the state, but it is quite removed from the larger centers of irrigated agriculture. Some data could be secured through the operation of this plant which could not be obtained otherwise. The value of the data is such that it might warrant continuing the operation of this plant even if the other two are abandoned.

The operation of this plant would not be justified by the value of the information on the cost of pumping from a deep well if that were the only consideration. Pumping water is a mechanical operation, the cost of which depends upon the efficiency of the machinery used, and varies directly with the depth from which it is necessary to lift the water, but is unaffected by climatic conditions or geographical locations, except as the latter may affect the cost of power. Data on pumping secured in one locality, when reduced to a "cost per foot of lift" basis, will apply to any locality where the same type of well and machinery is used and a proper correction made for any difference in cost of power. At the Experiment Station at Garden City the state has an irrigation pumping plant, the well and pump of which are of the same type as those at Weskan. Some of the most reliable and valuable data obtainable in the state are being secured from this plant. At the present time it is necessary to depend on this plant for most of our data on pumping from deep wells. Comparative data on the operation of these two plants would undoubtedly be valuable, but that is not the chief value of continuing the operation of the Weskan plant.

The feasibility of irrigation depends not alone on the cost of pumping the water, but also on the value of the crops which the water will pro

duce as compared with the value of crops which can be raised in the same locality without irrigation. Conditions influencing crop production are different in Wallace county from those in Finney county. At Weskan the rainfall is less than at Garden City, the humidity is greater, the altitude is higher, and the frost-free period is shorter. These factors all affect crop yields. Varieties of crops which have proven best adapted to irrigation at Garden City may not be so at Weskan. Crop data obtained in Finney county cannot be applied to Wallace county with the same accuracy with which engineering data can. While the irrigation plant at Weskan is located where the depth to water is more than a hundred feet, and the data secured by its operation may show that water cannot profitably be pumped from such depths for the irrigation of farm crops, Wallace county has considerable shallow-water land on which the cost of a pumping plant or the cost of pumping would be but a small fraction of that at the site of the present plant. Data from this deepwell plant on the crop-producing power of water would apply equally well to the shallow-water land in that part of the state, and it would seem to be of sufficient value that it should be obtained before the present plant is abandoned.

The nature of the work undertaken at the Weskan project should be essentially demonstrational rather than experimental. Instead of great numbers of experimental plats, the fields should be fewer in number and much larger. Crops should be limited to those varieties particularly adapted to that locality or commonly grown there. The work should not include a comparatively large number of crop rotations or tillage methods. Alfalfa probably should receive two or more rates of watering, or amounts of water, to determine what is the most economical amount to apply. Other crops should, if practical, be grown both with and without irrigation to determine the value of irrigation water in increasing crop yields above those produced by rainfall alone. This method would be less expensive than experimental work usually is, and the fields, being larger, would produce more revenue than can be expected from smaller plats.

The above has not been said to detract from the work of the Garden City Experiment Station, which involves the use of several hundred experimental plats and a great many varieties of crops, crop rotations, tillage methods and rates of watering. The Experiment Station is doing very valuable work and the data it is securing can be obtained in no other way. Investigations and experiments such as those under way there are of immeasurable value to irrigation agriculture in the state. The irrigation commissioner is pleased to make this comment on the splendid work of that station and the efficient manner in which it is being handled. He further wishes to urge that it be given the unstinted support to which it is entitled.

Work such as that outlined for the Weskan project is distinctly of a character which belongs to the Agricultural Experiment Station. The irrigation commissioner should not engage in the growing of crops or other agricultural experimentation where there is another department in the state which was created for that purpose, and which is already en

gaged in that work. The Weskan project should, therefore, be turned over to the Agricultural College and its operation made a part of the work of the Agricultural Experiment Station.

Buildings on the Weskan project are in a run-down condition and will need considerable repair. The irrigation plant will require some work to put it in shape for satisfactory operation. Horses and some additional machinery will need to be purchased. In order to meet these needs and provide for salaries, labor and maintenance, the following appropriations will be needed:

The irrigation commissioner believes that any salvage value remaining in these plants can be secured only through their operation by the state, and is of the opinion that the information to be obtained through the operation of the Weskan plant will justify the appropriations necessary for its operation. This project should be carried on but a short term of years, possibly six or eight, until the most fundamental information has been obtained, and should then be discontinued. In no way should it supplant the Garden City Station as the irrigation Experiment Station of Kansas, nor should the provision of funds for its operation be allowed to in any way affect or decrease the appropriations necessary for that station.

After having spent large sums of money in the construction of irrigation pumping plants, and having already abandoned most of them without obtaining any information from their operation, it would seem that this plant should be operated for a short term of years to obtain what information it will furnish. However, unless the legislature feels that this information is of sufficient value to warrant the appropriations which its operation will necessitate, it should authorize the sale of it as well as the Modoc and Selkirk plants.

The experience of the past two years is sufficient to show that the present method of handling the plants should not be continued. The machinery will continually depreciate in value, and the results of such operation will not be of sufficient value to warrant their publication.

CHAPTER III.

THE KANSAS-COLORADO WATER CONTROVERSY.

The legislature of Kansas passed a resolution in 1901 directing the attorney-general to institute such legal proceedings as might be necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state of Kansas and its citizens in the use of the waters of the Arkansas river. Events leading up to this action were substantially as follows: Between the years 1879 and 1888 irrigation canals covering over 200,000 acres were constructed in the Arkansas valley in western Kansas. These canals were not used to their full capacities at that time, because not all of the land under them had been settled and brought under cultivation. However, there was an ample supply of water for the irrigation of the lands under these ditches. Following this a great many irrigating canals were constructed in the Arkansas valley in Colorado, until by 1902 the attorney-general of Colorado reported that “713 ditches, with a total appropriation of 5,877 cubic feet of water per second," were taking water from the Arkansas river for the irrigation of 500,000 acres of land in that state. Practically the entire flow of the river was diverted in Colorado, and the water supply became a serious problem for those people in Kansas who had spent large sums of money in the construction of irrigation works. Many people who had settled under these Kansas ditches were compelled to leave. The population of Finney county, which had reached a total of 5,294 in 1888 when irrigation development was at its height, was reduced to 2,951 in 1891.

Pursuant to the above-mentioned resolution, the state of Kansas brought action in the supreme court of the United States against the state of Colorado and the ditch companies in the Arkansas valley. In connection with this suit it is worthy of note that Kansas contended chiefly for the doctrine of riparian rights. Its chief complaint seemed to be the damage to the underflow of the valley by the diversion of the natural flow of the waters in Colorado, rather than its right to the flow of the river for purposes of irrigation, and in its bill prayed that the citizens and corporations of Colorado be permanently enjoined from diverting any of the water from the stream in Colorado. On the other hand, Colorado contended that their state constitution gives them the absolute right to all water which falls on their territory, regardless of prior rights outside of the state.

This case was argued in December, 1906, and was decided in May, 1907. In rendering its decision the court did not sustain Colorado's claim to the ownership of all the waters within its borders, nor did it sustain the Kansas claim, as a riparian owner, to the undiminished flow of the river. It stated, in effect, that an equitable division of the waters must be had, but that Kansas did not prove sufficient inequality to get a verdict in its favor, and said:

"The decree will also dismiss the bill of the state of Kansas as against all the defendants, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to institute new proceedings whenever it shall appear that through a ma

terial increase in the depletion of the waters of the Arkansas by Colorado, its corporations or its citizens, the substantial interests of Kansas are being injured to the extent of destroying the equitable apportionment of benefits between the two states resulting from the flow of the river."

KANSAS-COLORADO WATER COMPROMISE.

Following the dismissal of this suit the larger ditches in Kansas entered into an agreement among themselves, by the terms of which the United States Irrigating Company, a subsidiary corporation of the beet sugar company at Garden City, agreed to bring suit against the ditch companies in Colorado to compel them to release 350 cubic feet of water per second to the Kansas ditches during the irrigating season. The United States Irrigating Company was the owner of a majority of the stock in several of the Kansas ditches.

This suit was brought in the district court of the United States for the district of Colorado, in August, 1910. As originally commenced, the state engineer and other officials in Colorado were made defendants in the suit, but a demurrer was sustained in behalf of the official defendants. Large sums of money were spent by the plaintiffs, the defendants and the state of Colorado in obtaining evidence in this case, but before it was decided an agreement was entered into between the United States Irrigating Company and the defendant ditches, by which the defendant ditches were to pay all costs of the suit and a certain sum of money to the ditches in Kansas. In consideration of this, the Kansas ditches were to yield their priority date for their appropriations as of 1884 and accept a date as of August 27, 1910, and the case was dismissed. Neither the state of Colorado nor any of its officials became parties to this agreement.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE WATER CONTROVERSY.

In view of the fact that the total flow of the Arkansas river was already overappropriated by the Colorado ditches, the dates of whose appropriations were prior to August, 1910, it was readily seen that the above agreement could result in no additional water for Kansas irrigators during the irrigating season, and the Finney County Water Users' Association, owner of the Farmers' ditch, which was interested chiefly in securing an adequate water supply for the farmers under its ditch, refused to enter into this agreement. It subsequently commenced a suit in the United State district court in Colorado against certain ditches in Colorado, in which it seeks to compel them to release water for the irrigation of the 10,000 acres under its ditches. This case is still pending.

There is at this time approximately 60,000 acres under the irrigation canals in Finney, Kearny and Hamilton counties dependent almost entirely upon the Arkansas river for a water supply. Practically all the water received by these ditches is flood water, which comes in such volume that the Colorado ditches are unable to absorb the entire flow. This supply has been such that, with the exception of the Great Eastern canal, which has a storage reservoir holding approximately 30,000 acre feet, and which is filled during the nonirrigating season, the Kansas ditches have not received more than half the water which they need or which they are entitled to; nor can they get it at times when it is most needed,