OCR Text |
Show (2) if once there is such an agreement, that in itself furnishes the "law" governing the rights of the several parties until a new agreement is concluded. (Judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 1937» in the Meuse Dispute between Holland and Belgium). (3) If there is no such agreement, the rights of the several Provinces and States must be determined by applying the rule of "equitable apportionshment", each unit getting a fair share of the water of the common river (American decisions). (4) In the general interests of the entire community inhabiting dry, arid territories, priority may usually have to be given to an earlier irrigation project over a later one; "priority of appropriation gives superiority of right" (Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, ^59, ^70). (5) For purposes of priority the date of a project is not the date when survey is first commenced but the date when the project reaches finality and there is a fixed and definite purpose to take it up and carry it through (looming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, ^9^, ^95', Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282, U.S. 660, 66?, 673). (6) As between projects of different kinds for the use of water, a suitable order or precedence might be (i) use for domestic and sanitary purposes; (ii) use for navigation and (iii) use for power and irrigation (Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, Volume XVI, No. 35, pages 6, 7).i/ 1. Report of the Indus (Rau) Commission 10-11 (1942) |
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] : |