Title |
The Report of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission : Volume 3, Water resources law |
Creator |
United States. Water Resources Policy Commission |
Subject |
Water resources development; Water -- Law and legislation |
OCR Text |
Show This survey summarizes materials assembled during a comprehensive study and review of all existing water-resources legislation, a study and review undertaken pursuant to the President's letter to you of January 3, 1950. There is a very large amount of relevant legislation, a century's accumulation governing and affecting the activities of many federal agencies |
Publisher |
Washington, D.C. : U.S. G.P.O., 1950 |
Date |
1950 |
Type |
Text |
Format |
application/pdf |
Language |
eng |
Relation |
Watern Waters Digital Library |
Rights Management |
Digital Image Copyright 2004, University of Utah. All Rights Reserved. |
Contributing Institution |
Gov Docs, U.S. Lvl 1, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, 295 S 1500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860 |
Source Physical Dimensions |
15 cm x 23 cm. |
Scanning Technician |
Backstage Library Works, 1180 S. 800 E., Orem, UT 84097 |
ARK |
ark:/87278/s6vt1rg9 |
Setname |
wwdl_documents |
ID |
1139162 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6vt1rg9 |
Title |
page 061 |
OCR Text |
Show 61 intending appropriators naturally would turn for guid- ance. The principle on which it proceeds is not less ap- plicable to interstate streams and controversies than to * others. Both States pronounce the rule just and reason- able as applied to the natural conditions in that region ; and to prevent any departure from it the people of both incorporated it into their constitutions. It originated in the customs and usages of the people before either State came into existence, and the courts of both hold that their constitutional provisions are to be taken as recognizing the prior usage rather than as creating a new rule. These considerations persuade us that its applica- tion to such a controversy as is here presented cannot be other than eminently just and equitable to all concerned. Any suggestion, however, that the relative rights of contend- ing states must depend upon the rules of law applied in such states was negated in Connecticut v. Massachusetts.267 Con- necticut sought to enjoin Massachusetts from diverting water from the watershed of the Connecticut River for domestic pur- poses Both States recognized the common-law doctrine that riparian owners have the right to the undiminished flow of the stream free from contamination.268 After noting that the Court will not exert its extraordinary power to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, unless the threatened invasion of rights is of serious magnitude and established by clear and convincing evidence, the Court said:269 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 re- quire. The determination of the relative rights of con- tending States in respect of the use of streams flowing through them does not depend upon the same consider- ations and is not governed by the same rules of law that are applied in such states for the solution of similar questions of private right. * * * And, while the mu- 2W282U. S. 660 (1931). 268 282 U. S. at 662. 299 282 U. S. at 670. |
Format |
application/pdf |
Resource Identifier |
081-UUM-WResLaw3_page 061.jpg |
Source |
Original Book : The report of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission |
Setname |
wwdl_documents |
ID |
1138443 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6vt1rg9/1138443 |