OCR Text |
Show -3- the stream flows between the two states. The Court granted the injunction sought by Colorado and denied the relief for which Kansas counter-claimed. Among other things the Court said that Kansas had not sustained her alle- gations that Colorado's use had materially increased and that the increase had worked a serious detriment to the interest of Kansas-. The so-calle d North Platte suit (Nebraska v. Wyoming, Colorado Impleaded Defendant, United States/ Intervener) was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 11, 1945 (see 3^5 U. S. 589)* ^ne decree set up a comprehensive apportionment of stream flow between the three states. In this case Nebraska sued Wyoming asserting that the stream should be adminis- tered upon a basis of priorities regardless of state lines. Wyoming did not object to an apportionment but urged that the apportionment should take the form of a mass allocation between the states. Colorado sought dismissal of the suit upon the ground that there was no showing of existing or im- mediate threatened injury. The United States asserted that it owned all the watsr of the stream which was unappropriated at the time of the inception of the North Platte project and further contended that the decree of ap- portionment should allot to the United States the amounts of water necessary to and available for Federal reclamation projects served by the stream. The Court denied the Colorado motion to dismiss holding that the natural flow of the stream was over-appropriated and, hence, there was a controversy appropriate for judicial determination. The Nebraska contention for inter- state administration on a strict priority basis was likewise denied. A mass allocation, as contended for by Wyoming, was made but not in accordance with the method or amounts urged by Wyoming* The claim of the United States of ownership of unappropriated water was rejected, the Court pointing out that, as required by the Reclamation Act, the United States had acted under and pursuant to state law in obtain- ing water rights for the Reclamation projects and, hence, the question of ownership of the unappropriated water was "largely academic." The Court likewise denied the contention of the United States that a separate allo- cation of water to it should be made, . Mr. Justice Roberts wrote a strong dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices Frankfurter and Rutledge. The dissent held that the case should be dismissed in accordance with Colorado's contention that no injur*y had been shown. 3. EACH STATE IS ENTITLED TO ITS EQUITABLE SHARE OF TEE BENEFITS. Xn a suit between states involving interstate waters the rule is that each state is entitled to its equitable share of the benefits derived from suchi waters. The leading case in this regard is unquestionably Kansas v. Colorado^, supra. There Kansas, a state in which the common-law riparian doctrine applied, sought to enjoin diversions for irrigation uses in Colorado, a state which recognizes the appropriation system. Kansas sought'a decree which would compel Colorado to permit the Arkansas river to flow into Kansas as it had in the past, the water to be undiminished in quantity and unim- paired in quality. Colorado contended that it had the right to use as it |