| OCR Text |
Show LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT 201 State and all water claimants, even where the State had granted the water rights before it entered into the compact" (p. 106); (2) that "As the State had power to bind by compact their respective appro- priators by division of the flow of the stream, they had power to reach that end either by providing for a continuous equal division of the water from time to time in the stream, or by providing for alternate periods of flow to the one State and to the other of all the water in the stream" (p. 108); and (3) that "As Colorado possessed the right only to an equitable share of the water in the stream, the decree of January 12,1898, in the Colorado water proceeding did not award to the Ditch Company any right greater than the equitable share" and that, therefore, "the apportionment made by the Compact cannot have taken from the Ditch Company any vested right, unless there was in the proceedings leading up to the Compact or in its application, some vitiating infirmity" (p. 108). The Court also held that the Congress' consent to the compact did not make it a "treaty or statute of the United States within the mean- ing of §237(a) of the Judicial Code" (now 28 U.S.C., sec. 1257(1)) and that, therefore, appeal would not lie from the State Court's decision, but that "in holding that the State Engineer and his sub- ordinates should be enjoined from taking action required by the Compact the State Court denied an important claim under the Consti- tution which may be reviewed on certiorari by this Court under § 237 (b)" (now28U.S.C.,sec.l257(3)). (pp.lOQf). 94-497-69------14 |
