| OCR Text |
Show 622 EXERCISE OF THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT should, in the first instance, decree such method of distribution, without much more conclusive and compelling evidence than is in this case."142 It has been noted earlier under "Rotation Agreements" that the Idaho Supreme Court gave its blessing to voluntary rotation agreements and their enforcement. However, in 1920, this court refused to adopt a rule compelling the use of water by rotation. The court was not convinced that the time had arrived for the adoption of such a rule in Idaho. This stand was taken because of the long-standing practice of many irrigation communities of giving each user a continuous flow of water, and of the preponderance of water rights in the State that had passed by decree which were based upon the rule of continuous flow. The practice of rotation was not condemned, but on the contrary would be enforced where the parties had contracted for it. However, until the practice had become established by custom, it would not be imposed upon water users accustomed to the continuous-delivery plan, without their consent.143 In a subsequent proceeding to change the point of diversion and place of use of certain waters, the Idaho Supreme Court interpreted a trial court decree providing for rotation, provided only that there was sufficient water in the stream system to supply other appropriators as authorized by their decreed water rights and priority dates thereof.144 Interstate Compact hi 1922, the States of Colorado and New Mexico entered into a compact with respect to the equitable distribution of the waters of La Plata River, which rises in Colorado and flows into New Mexico. The compact was ratified by both States in 1923,14S and it received Congressional consent in 1925.146 Litigation ensued over a provision in article II, section 3, of the La Plata River Compact to the effect that whenever the river flow is so low that in the judgment of the two State Engineers it would be advantageous to distribute the entire streamflow to each State in alternating periods, rather than according to criteria elsewhere provided in the compact, such use may be rotated between the States "in such manner, for such periods, and to continue for such time as the State engineers may jointly determine." The Colorado Supreme Court held that such compact, which interfered with a Colorado appropriator's use of his decreed water by requiring the water to be delivered to New Mexico appropriators part of the time, could not be pleaded by the State water officials as excusing their failure to enforce such priority.147 142/« re Ahtanum Creek, 139 Wash. 84, 95-96, 245 Pac. 758 (1926). 143Muirv. Allison, 33 Idaho 146, 162-163, 191 Pac. 206 (1920). 144Beecher v. Cassia Creek Irr. Co., 66 Idaho 1, 8-10,154 Pac. (2d) 507 (1944). 145N. Mex. Laws 1923, p. 13; Colo. Sess. Laws 1923, p. 696. 14643Stat. 796. 141'La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. v.Hinderlider, 93 Colo. 128,130-134, 25 Pac. (2d) 187 (1933). Later, in the same cause, the court said that the compact attempted |
