OCR Text |
Show -7- Except in so far as the rule of priority may control, there is no definite standard, test, or criterion by which the equitable shares of States in an interstate stream can be measured out. Apportionment calls for the exercise of judgment from consideration of numerous factors. Even the selection of the factors is largely a matter of judgment, for there is no authoritative enumeration of them. They should include, no doubt, such matters as the extent of land irrigated and irrigable, dependence upon irrigation, volume of water produced and available in each area, diversions, duty of water, consumption, depletion, return flows, sufficiency of supply, industries served and economic results of irrigation, economical or wasteful practices, effect of wrongful uses upon lower areas, effect of the imposition of any limitation upon upper areas in comparison with benefits to lower areas, additional areas awaiting development, and the effect of extension of irrigation thereto. A rule that would seem elementary in equitable distribution (even aside from legal rights based on priority statutes) is that present rightful uses should be preferred to prospective uses under possible future development. Is this case governed by the rule usually applicable to suits between States which lays down as among the prerequisites of relief (a) invasion of right, (b) resulting injury of great magnitude, and (c) clear and convincing proof, or is the case distinguishable from those in which that rule has been applied? Possible points of distinction which suggest themselves are: First. The effect upon the rights and remedies of the litigating States of the doctrine of priority of apportionment in force in each of them. The case of Wyoming v. Colorado was decided by application of this doctrine. In |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |