OCR Text |
Show Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 206 U. S. 46, 97; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 670. Controversies between States are to be adjudicated on the basis of "equality of right," which means that "the principles of right and equality shall be applied, having regard to the equal level or plane on which all the States stand in point of power and right under our constitutional system." Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 465; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 97. No State may assume to appropriate and use the water of an interstate stream in disregard of the rights of other States or appropriators below her boundary. The latter are entitled to an equitable portion of such water or an equitable apportionment of the benefits thereof. Kansas v. Colorado, supra (103-105); Wyoming v. Colorado, supra (466). This Court will not, generally speaking at least, exert its extraordinary power to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, unless the invasion or threat of invasion of right be of serious magnitude and be established by clear and convincing evidence. The burden on the complainant State is heavier than that which rests upon a plaintiff in a suit between private litigants. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 521; New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365, 374; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 522; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383. |
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] : |