OCR Text |
Show -25- That suoh alternate rotating flow was then a more efficient use of the stream then if the flow had been steadily divided equally between the Colorado and the New Mexico appropriators was conclusively established by the evidence. That is, the rotating supply which the Compact authorized, and the two State Engineers agreed upon, was clearly more beneficial to the Ditch Company than to have given to it and other Colorado appropriators steadily one-half of the water in the river. The delegation to the State Engineers of the authority to determine when the waters should be so rotated was a matter of detail clearly within the constitutional power. There is no claim that the authority conferred was abused. Fifth. As Colorado possessed the right only to an equitable share of the water in the stream, the decree of January 12, I898, in the Colorado water proceeding did not award to the Ditch Company any right greater than the equitable share. Hence the apportionment made by the Compact can not have taken from the Ditch Company any vested right, unless there was in the proceed- ings loading up to the Compact or in its application, some vitiating in- firmity. No such infirmity or illegality has been shown. There is no al- legation in the pleadings, no evidence in the record, no suggestion in brief or argument, that the apportionment agreed upon by the commissioners was entered into without due enquiry; or that it was not an honest exercise of judgment; or even that it was, or is, inequitable. The fact that the appoint- ment of the Joint Commissioners was authorized in-1921, that their agreement was not adopted by the States until 1923* a^d that it was not approved by Congress until I925 shows that there was ample time for consideration by.all concerned. There is no suggestion that the Ditch Company, or indeed anyone else, was denied by the commissioners opportunity to be heard; or even that any water claimant objected to the terms of the Compact. It appears that although the State of Colorado was not permitted to intervene in this litiga- tion, Colorado v. La Plata River & C, C. Ditch Co., 101 Colo. 368; 73 P. 2& 997* its Attorney General represented the State's water officials. Moreover, the Compact provides in Article VI that it "may be modified or terminated at any time by mutual consent"; and there is not even a suggestion that either* State, or the Ditch Company, has expressed a desire.to modify or terminate it. Sixth. The water officials.rely for their defense upon the rule re- quiring equitable apportionment of the water of an interstate stream and trie action of Congress in approving the adjustment of the equitable apportionment which the States made by their compacts. The assent of Congress to the compact between Colorado and New Mexico does not make it a "treaty or statute of tine United States" within the meaning of § 237 (a) °f the Judicial Code, and no question as to the validity of the consent is presented. People v. Centra!! Railroad, 12 Wall. 1+55' A claim based on the equitable interstate apportion- ment of water, like one based on the proper location of a State boundary, is not within the provisions of S 237 (&)• Rust Land & Lumber Co. v. Jackson., 25O U. S, 71- he appeal must therefore be dismissed. But in holding tha-t the State Engineer and his subordinates should be enjoined from taking action required by the Compact the State Court denied an important claim under the Constitution which may be reviewed on oertiorari by this Court under § 237 (*>)• For the decision below necessarily rests upon the premise that at the time the Compact was made Colorado was absolutely entitled to at least 58-l/U cubic feet of water per second regardless of the amount left for New Mexico. Th_e |