OCR Text |
Show 62 nicipal law relating to like questions between individuals is to be taken into account, it is not to be deemed to have controlling weight. As was shown in Kansas v. Colo- rado, * * * such disputes are to be settled on the basis of equality of right. But this is not to say that there must be an equal division of the waters of an inter- state stream among the States through which it flows. It means that the principles of right and equity 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" and that, upon the consideration of all the pertinent laws of the con- tending States and all other relevant facts, this Court will determine what is an equitable apportionment of the use of such waters. Shortly thereafter, the rule of equitable apportionment was again followed in deciding New Jersey v. New York.210 Limit- ing the extent of diversion of waters of the Delaware River by New York, the Court asserted that its effort in such contro- versies "always is to secure an equitable apportionment with- out quibbling over formulas."271 Still more recently, the doctrine was reaffirmed in Hinder- lider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.272 Stating that the "rule of equitable apportionment was settled by Kansas v. Colorado," the Court declared that:273 Whether the apportionment of the water of an inter- state stream be made by compact between the lower and upper States with the consent of Congress or by a decree of this Court, the apportionment is binding upon the citizens of each State and all water claimants, even where the State had granted the water rights before it entered into the compact. Passing note should be made of two cases indicating situa- tions where the Court will not intervene in interstate water 870 283 U.S. 336 (1931). m283U. S. at 342-343. wa304TJ. S. 92 (1938). "•304U. S. at 102,106. |