OCR Text |
Show have been well established through decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The question of paramount importance today arises out of attempts by the federal government to control these interstate waters * This we shall discuss later in the paper. First * may we note a few of the outstanding principles which have to do with the division of water between the states. These are very well summarized in the report of American So- ciety of Civil Engineers on "Interstate Water problems" as follows! 1. "(b) That each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders / including the beds of streams and other waters Kansas vs. Colorado, 186 U« S« 208; 206 u. s. 46 (1901-1907). 2* "(c) That a State may determine for itself whether the riparian or appropriation doctrine shall control as regards the waters within its boundaries* and is free to change its system; Clark vs. Nash, 198 U S 361; Conn- ecticut vs. Massachusetts, 282 U. S 660 (decided February 24 1931) 3 United States vs. Rio Grande Irrigation Co. , 174 U, S. 690-702; California-Oregon Power Co. vs. Beaver Portland Cement Co. et al. 73 Fed. 2d 555. 3* "(e) That no State may claim the exclusive right to the use of all the waters within its boundaries} that there must be an equitable division or apportionment of the benefits of an interstate stream between the States affected; Kansas vs. Colorado 185 u» S. 208; 206 U* S. 46 (1901-1907); Wyoming vs. Colorado* 259 U* S* 419-496 260 U, S. 1 (1922); Connecticut vs. Massachusetts, 282 Uc S« 660 (decided February 24, 1931); New Jersey vs. New York et al., 283 u- 5. 336 (1931); Missouri vs. Illinois* 200 U* S» I4.96 (1906); Georgia vs. Tennessee Copper Co. , 206 u« s. 230-237. I4.0 "(f) That* as between two or more States which re- cognize exclusively the doctrine of appropriation and beneficial use* such doctrine may properly be made the basis in a determination of equitable apportionment of the common water supply* Vfyoming vs. Colorado-* 259 U. S» 14.19) 260 U, S. 1; 236 U, S* k9k', 298 U» S. 573* (priority of appropriation, however, does not necessarily create super- iority of right in the waters of an interstate stream; New Jersey vs. New York et al#, 283 Ut S» 336 (1931)* see also Item (e); 5» 1!(i) That the appropriators and users of water in a State are represented by the State under which thsir claims arise* and are bound by the limitations which may be imposed upon that State, either by Supreme Court decree or by inter- state compact; Nebraska vs» Wyoming* 295 U* S* i+Oj 79 I* Ed* 1289 at p. 1291; Wyoming vs. Colorado, 286 U* S. l&k (1932); Hinderlider et al. vs. La Plata River and Cherry Creek.JDitch -50- |