| OCR Text |
Show Fusion of public* State, and administrative agencies by concurrent leg- islation of the States, has also been employed as a means of settling inter- state problems* The New York-New Jersey Port Authority was thus created for purposes of planning and financing important undertakings, but has no au- thority to enforce its activities against either State. BASIC PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO INTERSTATE WATER CONTROVERSIES In the fifteen decisions heretofore rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the waters of interstate streams, the Court has announced and applied a number of fundamental or underlying principles ap- plicable to such controversies. These fundamental principles are reviewed in the case of Connecticut vs. Massachusetts, 7 decided February 24, 1931» and are as follows? (a) That of "equality of right" between States; 5* 7 (b) That each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders * including the beds of streams and other waters; 5 (c) That a State may determine for itself whether the riparian or ap- propriation doctrine shall control as regards the waters within its boun- daries, and is free to change its system; 4* ' ' ^' ^ (d) That "whenever the action of one state reaches through the agency of natural laws into the territory of another state, the question of the extent and limitations of the rights of the two states becomes a matter of justiceable dispute between them"; 5* 8 (e) That no State may claim the exclusive right to the use of all trie waters within its boundaries; that there must be an equitable division or apportionment of the ¦benefits of an interstate stream between the States affected;5* 6* <> b> 21> 25 (f) That* as between two* or more States which recognize exclusively the doctrine of appropriation and beneficial use, such doctrine may proper*ly be made the basis in a determination of equitable apportionment of the common water supply26 (priority of appropriation, however, does not neces- sarily create superiority of right in the waters of an interstate stream;^ see also Item (e)); (g) That water may be taken from one drainage basin for use in anotfci- er drainage basin, although such diversions may result in some injury,to the basin in which such waters originate;"' ° 23United States vs. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., I7I4 U. S. 690-702. ^California-Oregon Pov/er Co. vs. Beaver Portland Cement Co., et al. 73 Fed. 2d 555. 25Georgia vs. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 Uf s, 230*r237. 26wyoming vs. Colorado, 259 U, S. lp.9; 260 U* S. 1; 286 U. S» l&k* 298 U. s» 573. -89- |
