OCR Text |
Show "test were between private parties at odds about a boundary. Still less will it issue here in a contest between states, a contest to be dealt with in the large and ample way that alone becomes the dignity of the litigants concerned*" A priority decree as of 1892 by Washington Court for the Gardena Ditch claim was held "of no force against Oregon or Oregon appropriators not par- ties to the suit*11 and the appropriation lost by laches and abandonmenent while Oregon rights were being matured. The Court held that the State of Washington was not entitled to injunc- tive relief against Oregon under the evidence showing diversions by Oregon water users for domestic and agricultural purposes for 50 years* and upon demonstration that, at periods of shortage of stream flow, only a small quan- tity of water would escape, even if not diverted, and would be lost in deep gravel formations beneath the stream channels* The .Court held that the priority dates and quantities awarded an appro- priator by the Courts of his own State were not necessarily binding on the appropriators from the same stream in another State. Rio Grande Suit* - Charging that rights to water from the Rio Grand© for irrigation,~dating back to 1861, were being violated by the State of New Mexico, and the lliddle Rio Grpnde Conservancy District and its officials, the State of Texas commenced an original action^- before the United States Supreme Court at the October term of that Court in 1935 "to enjoin them from making any increased storage or diversions beyond those in existence prior to January 23, 19O6« The complaint detailed the circumstances which caused the Republic of Mexico, in the early 1890*s, to make complaints to the Federal Government that diversions of water on the upper stream had deprived Mexican lands of similar irrigation water supplies* This was followed by the establishment of an international Boundary Commission and a treaty which assured to Mexico a certain flow perpetually. Thereafter, the Elephant Butte Dam was con- structed near Engle, New Mexico, at a cost of about $ll4,QOOj>OOO. Texas charged that Hew Mexico had violated that clause of the Rio Grande Compact v/hich "had been entered into by those two States with Colorado and which had been approved by Act of Congress dated June 17, 1930* ^^d extended by a similar Act on June 5* 1935* The section in question provided? "New Mexico agress with Texas, with the understanding that prior ves-fced rights above and below Elephant Butte Reservoir shall never be impaired hereby, that she will not cause or suffer the water supply of the Elephant Butte Reservoir to be impaired by new or increased di- version or storage within the~*limits of New Mexico unless and until such depletion is off set by increase of drainage return." ^Texas vs« New Mexico and the liiddle Rio Grande Conservancy District; disposed of by Rio Grande Compact now (1939) in.force* -100- |