| OCR Text |
Show 67 concern and interest to the United States and the affected states.298 Since a primary purpose of many of these compacts is ap- portionment of waters of interstate streams, importance at- taches to the case of Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.29* This litigation involved the La Plata River which flows from Colorado into New Mexico. The Ditch Com- pany sought to enjoin the State Engineer of Colorado from closing its headgate, thus permitting water adjudicated to it under an early state decree to flow down to water users in New Mexico. The State Engineer defended on the ground that he was acting in conformity with the provisions of a compact be- tween Colorado and New Mexico, approved by Congress. The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed a holding by the lower court that the State Engineer's action was justified by the compact, declaring in effect that the compact could not disre- gard vested rights in Colorado. But this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States which said:286 The Supreme Court of Colorado held the Compact un- constitutional because, for aught that appears, it em- bodies not a judicial, or quasi-judicial, decision of con- troverted rights, but a trading compromise of conflicting claims. The assumption that a judicial or quasi-judicial decision of the controverted claims is essential to the validity of a compact adjusting them, rests upon mis- conception. It ignores the history and order of devel- *98 In this connection, it is pertinent to note the following comments in identical letters of May 3,1950 from President Truman to Mr. R. J. Newell and Mr. E. O. Larsen, federal representatives in compact negotiations con- cerning the Yellowstone River and Bear River, respectively, "? * * I refer to the somewhat recent tendency to incorporate in interstate water compacts questionable or conflicting provisions imposing restrictions on use of water by the United States, such as appear in the Snake River Compact enactment which I approved on March 21,1950 * * *. ***** «* * * i am impressed with the importance of insuring that compact provisions reflect as clearly as possible a recognition of the respective respon- sibilities and prerogatives of the United States and the affected States." MZQ4V. S. 92 (1938). "•304 U. S. at 104. |
