OCR Text |
Show entitled to have the stream .come to his land as it would naturally flow* sub- stantially undiminished in quantity, and unimpaired in quality. All ripar- ian owners have an equal right to make reasonable use of the waters of a common stream consistent with their necessities. This right does not mean, however., that all users are entitled to equal quantities of water from the ¦ same source. This doctrine worked no particular hardship" so long as the com- petitive demand for water was relatively low in relation to the available sup- ply. As the demands for y&iter increased, however, a rule so absolute and in- flexible became increasingly impossible of strict application. Force of cir- cumstances and necessity for continued existence compelled a modification, if not a "theoretical abandonment, of the strict riparian doctrine. Pour decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have laid down the principle of "Equitable apportionment" of the waters of an interstate stream* based on the "equality of right11 existing between States. In the case of* Kansas vs. Colorado5 the controversy involved the use of the waters of the Arkansas River, which rises in the State of Colorado and flows into Kansas* The Government of the State of Kansas alleged that the depletion of the flow of the river by the irrigation of a large acreage in Colorado had injured, its lands, institutions, and citizens. Recognizing at the time only, the riparian doctrine, Kansas claimed the right to the entire flow of the river. Colorado, where the exclusive appropriation doctrine hod been adopted in its Constitution, claimed the right to the use of all the waters arising within its'boundaries, on the basis of its sovereign right of ownership in said waters. Notwithstanding the fact that Kansas as a State had suffered some damage from the depleted flow of the river, the Court decided: That, since Colorado lies entirely within the arid region, and due to the exigen- cies of its people as a result of such natural conditions, and the large de- velopment that had accrued in that State as a result of the theretofore large use of water by its citizens, "it would seem that equality of right, and equity "between the two states, forbid any interference with the present use of water in Colorado"; but that further depletion of the water by Colorado might result in a situation in which "Kansas may justly say there is no longer an equitable division of benefits, and may rightfully call for relief.5 The decision in this case has been interpreted by many as establishing the principle of "equitable division" or "equitable apportionment11 of the waters of an interstate stream. In the case of Wyoming vs. Colorado,6 involving the use of the waters of the La ramie River, which rises in Colorado and flows into Wyoming, the latter State alleged that a proposed diversion of water in Colorado from the Larstmie River Basin, for the irrigation of lands outside that basin in the State of Colorado, by means of the so-called Laramie-Poudre Tunnel would injure prior appropriators of water out of the Laramie River in Wyoming. Wyoming contended that priority of use, regardless of State lines, should prevail^ and therefore, that since it had prior appropriations of a suffi- cient volume to consume the firm water supply of the river, it was entitled 5K£Lnsas vs. Colorado, I85 U. s. 208; 206 U. S. h6 (1901-1907). ^Wyoming vs. Colorado, 259 U. S. Ul9-k96-, 260 U. S. 1 (1922). -82- |