| OCR Text |
Show 236 PROTECTION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES Interstate Suit The State of Washington brought suit in the United States Supreme Court against the State of Oregon, charging wrongful diversion of waters of an interstate stream to the prejudice of Washington inhabitants, and praying an adjudication apportioning the interests of the two States in the river system and restraining unlawful diversions and uses of the water.221 The special master appointed by the Supreme Court found that owing to stream channel losses of water, to limit the long-established use in Oregon would materially injure Oregon users without a compensating benefit to Washington users. The Court concluded:222 "To restrain the diversion at the bridge would bring distress and even ruin to a long-established settlement of tillers of the soil for no other or better purpose than to vindicate a barren right. This is not the high equity that moves the conscience of the court in giving judgment between states." The Court believed that the burden of proof, which fell more heavily on the complainant here than in a suit for an injunction in which States are not involved, had not been borne and that the injury caused by Oregon users, if there was any, did not appear by clear and convincing evidence to be one of serious magnitude. "Between the high contending parties whose interests are involved, nothing less will set in motion the restraining power of the court." Before ordering a decree dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court summarized the situation thus:223 The case comes down to this: The court is asked upon uncertain evidence of prior right and still more uncertain evidence of damage to destroy possessory interests enjoyed without challenge for over half a century. In such circumstances, an injunction would not issue if the contest 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. Other aspects of interstate suits are discussed in chapter 22. 1913). If it appears that the preliminary injunction is not necessary to preserve the status quo until final hearing, and that the rights of the complainant will suffer no serious injury until that time, or that the injury threatened is of such nature that it can be remedied on final hearing, then the injunction ought not to be granted. Biggs v. Leffingwell, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 665, 667-668, 132 S.W. 902 (1910). 221 Washington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517 (1936). 222Id. at 523. 223Id. at 529. |
