AZ vs. CA:24 California Exhibits, Vol. XXIV; Miscellaneous

page A89

COMPACT-REPORT BY CARPENTER----COLORADO A89 as the true real boundaries. * * * The construction of such a compact is a judicial question. for the United States Supreme Court (12 Pet. 725). See also discussion of the same subject in Stearns v. Minnesota (179 U. S. 223); Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U. S. 503, 517-528); Wharton v. Wise (153 U. S. 155). In other words, the States of the Union, by consent of Congress, have the same power to enter into compacts with each other as do independent nations, upon all matters not delegated to the Federal Government. International Rivers Controversies respecting international rivers have been settled by treaty (Heffter Droit Ind., appendix VIII; Hall, International Law, sec. 39). While the right of the United States to the use and benefit of the entire flow of the Rio Grande River irrespective of any former uses made in Mexico was upheld by the opinion of the Attorney General in 1895 (21 Ops. Atty. Gen. 274, 282), the rights of the two nations were settled by a "convention providing for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes" made May 21, 1906 (Malloy, Treaties, Vol. I, p. 1202). That the United States has a perfect right to divert the waters of the Colorado River at any point above the international boundary with Mexico irrespective of the effect of such diversion upon the flow of the river in Mexico or along that part of its course which forms the boundary between the two nations was held by the Attorney General September 28, 1903 (Rept. to Atty. Gen. of U. S., Colorado River in California, p. 58; opinion of Atty. Gen., Aug. 20, 1919). The above opinion is in harmony with the decision in the Rio Grande case, wherein it was held (quoting from syllabus): The fact that there is not enough water in the Rio Grande for the use of the inhabitants of both countries for irrigation purposes does not give Mexico the right to subject the United States to the burden of arresting its development and of denying to its inhabitants the use of a provision which nature has supplied entirely within its territory. The recognition of such a right is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain. The rules, principles, and precedents of international law imposed no duty or obligation upon the United States of denying to its inhabitants the use of the water of that part of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States although such use results in reducing the volume of water in the river below the point where it ceases to be entirely within the United States (21 Ops. Atty. Gen. 274). For a full discussion of international rights upon the Colorado River, see appendix, pages 318-343, part 2, Hearings Before Com-