OCR Text |
Show saw fit all of the .flow of the stream within its boundaries. The court de- clined to follow the theory of either state. After analyzing the facts and the.opposing arguments the court found specifically that while the, . appropriation for irrigation purposes in Colorado had diminished the flow cf the Arkansas into Kansas, yet the result has been the reclamation of large areas in Colorado, transforming- thousands of acres into fertile fields and rendering possible their occupation and cultivation; and that diminution of stream flow by Colorado had worked little if any detriment to the great body of the valley in Kansas. The court then concluded with this language (206 U. S. 117)j "*_* * regarding the interests of both states, and the ri£ht of each to receive benefit through irrigation, and in any other manner from the waters of this stream, we are not satisfied that Kansas has made out a case entitling it to a decree. At the same time it is obvious that if the depletion of the waters of the river by Colorado continues to increase there will come a time when Kansas may justly say that there is no longer an equitable division of benefits, and may rightfully call for relief against the action of Colorado, its'corporations and citizens, in ap- propriating the waters of the Arkansas for irrigation purposes." k* COURTS-HOLD THERE MUST BE EQUITABLE LIMIT TO CONFLICTING SOVER- EIGHTIES . Rather than announce any principle of equitable division or equitable apportionment of the waters of a river the Court says that there must be an equitable limit to conflicting sovereignties, a fair adjustment cf their otherwise complete and entire ri<?;ht of assertion, and an apportion- ment not of water but natural benefits* The controlling principle was admirably stated by Justice Butler in the case of Connecticut v, Massachusetts, 282, U. S. 660, 67O, from which we quotes "For the decision of suits between states, federal, state and international law are considered'and applied by this court as the exigencies of the particular case may require. The determination of the relative rights of contending states in respect of the use of streams flowing thru them does not depend upon the same con- siderations and is not governed by the same rules of law that are applied in Such states for the solution of similar questions of private ri~ht. Kansas v- Colcrado, I85 U. S. 125, 1JL46 (22 S. Cf. 552» 1+6 L# Ed, 838). And, while the municipal law relating to like questions between individuals is to be taken into aceount, it is not to be deemed to have controlling weight. As. was shown in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. I4.6, 100, (27 S. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed/ - 95&) * such disputes are to be settled on the basis of equality of ¦ ' ' righ.t. But this is not to say that there must be an equal division of the waters of an interstate' stream among the states through whiah it flows. It means that the principles of right arid equity; shall be applied having regard to the 'equal level or plan on which- all the states stand, in point of power and right under our consti- tutional system' and that, upon the consideration of the pertinent laws of the contending states and all other relevant facts, this |