OCR Text |
Show COMPACT----REPORT BY CARPENTER----COLORADO A91 INTERSTATE COMPACTS RESPECTING USE OF WATERS OF INTERSTATE RIVERS While, as we have already observed, various of the States have settled their controversies respecting boundaries, fisheries, etc., by interstate compact or by concurrent State legislation, having the same effect, this method of settlement of pending or threatened controversies respecting the use and distribution of the waters of interstate streams for irrigation and other beneficial purposes, has not been availed of. The right of adjoining States to the use and benefit of the waters of the streams common to both States has been considered by the court in the case of Kansas v. Colorado (185 U. S. 125; 206 U. S. 46), in which case it was held that the respective States were each entitled to an equitable portion of the waters of the common river, the extent of the use in each State to be determined upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the above-mentioned case the right of the United States to the use of the waters of the western streams was also considered and determined (pp. 87-93). An equitable apportionment or allocation of the use and distribution of the waters of western interstate streams may be best accomplished through the efforts of the States represented by commissioners fully acquainted with the facts and the surrounding conditions, as well as with the future possibilities of use of water from the streams. Principles of international law are applicable to the use and distribution of waters of interstate streams, and as regards compacts between the States. the rule of decision is not to be collected from the decisions of either State, but is one, if we may so speak, of an international character (Marlett v. Silk, 11 Pet. 1, 23). The rights of the nation in whose territory an international stream has its rise to the use and benefit of its waters for the development of its territory, irrespective of the effect upon the territory of a lower nation through which the stream passes on its way to the sea, were fully considered by Attorney General Judson Harmon, with respect to the claims made by the Republic of Mexico to damage by depletion of the waters of the Rio Grande, occasioned by uses in the United States. After exhaustive consideration of the various authorities upon the subject, he arrived at the conclusion that, while the United States had the right to utilize the entire flow of the Rio Grande in the necessary reclamation of the lands near the source of the stream, and while "precedents of international law imposed no liability or obligation upon the United States" to permit any of the water of the stream to flow to El Paso, nevertheless, he advised that the matter be treated |
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] : |