| OCR Text |
Show -125- (4) The United States Several cases have come before the United States Supreme Court involving the diversion of waters by one or more states to the injury of one or more other states. Only a few of them can be noted here. (a) Kansas v. Colorado Kansas in 1901 sought a decree to restrain Colorado from diversion of the Arkansas River to the injury of Kansas. Colorado by its ^ legislation followed the rule that priority of appropriation for followed the rule of equitable apportionment even as between junior and senior prior appropriations. In reply to the complaint of Kansas, Colorado demurred, contended that, as a sovereign and independent state, it was justified, if in its judgment its geographical situation and material welfare so demanded, in consumming for beneficial purposes all the waters within its territory, and that since the sources of the Arkansas River are in Colorado, it might wholly deprive Kansas and its citizens of the water. The court overruled the demurrer, reserving judgment on Colorado's argument, and requiring it to answer the complaint so that all the facts of the case would appear in the evidence presented to the court. In the course of its opinion the court said: Sitting, as it were, as an international, as well as a domestic tribunal, we apply Federal law, state law, and international law, as the exigencies of the particular case may demand. In its final decision in 1907 the court dismissed the complaint of Kansas,* but it also rejected the argument of Colorado. The court found that diversions in Colorado had caused some detriment in Kansas. But the court weighed this detriment against the benefit to Colorado, and declared that equality of right and equity between the two states forbade any interference with existing diversions in Colorado. The court stated that Kansas could institute new proceedings wherever it appeared that through material increase of diversion in Colorado substantial interests of Kansas were being injured to the extent of destroying the equitable apportionment of benefits between the two states.-' 1. 185 U.S. 125 (1902) 2. Ibid, p. 146 3. 206 U.Se 46 (1907) * beneficial use governed the allocation of available water. Kansas law |
| 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] : |
