OCR Text |
Show Company* 53 S. Ct. Rept. 803 (decided April 25, 1938). 6» "(l) That to appropriate water means to take and di- vert a specified quantity thereof and put it to "beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the State where such water is found and by so doing* to acquire under such laws a vested right to take and divert from the same source, and to use and consume the same quantity of water annually for- ever, subject only to the right of prior appropriators ; Arizona vs. California et al-» 283 u* S» 423 (1931).' 7» "(q) That in a given case* a division of the waters of an interstate stream may not necessarily create a prior appropriation or superiority of right over another state in the enjoyment and use of the waters of an-interstate stream New Jersey vs. New York et al. , 283 « S. 336 (1931 8. "(r) That * where the Court has by decision equitably divided the waters of an interstate stream between two States the apportionment or quantum received by each State may bo administered for the benefit of its appropriators* in accordance with its own laws* without regard to the in- terests of the other State, so long as the aggregate quan- tity so allocated is not exceeded; Wyoming vs.- Colorado* 286 Uo S. h9h (1932); 9« "(s) That the appropriates or water users under a Federal reclamation project obtain whatever rights they may have to the use of water frcm the States in which such projects are located* and the continued enjoyment of such right is subject to the laws of such State; Kansas vs» Colo*- rado, 185 u« S. 200; 206 U, S* U6 (1901-1907); Nebraska vs* Wyoming and Colorado» Impleaded Defendant* 295 u» S» 1+0 (decided April 1, 1935). 10*- "(t) That States have the unquestioned authority to agree upon the division and use of the waters of an inter- state stream* even if such division and use may have the effect of disturbing or destroying the rights of individ- ual appropriators which had theretofore been recognized by the laws of either State; Hinderlider et al.9 vs. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company* 58 S« Ct» Rept. 803 (decided April 25* 1938). Particular reference should be made to the case of Hinder lider et aZL. vs# La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company9 58 S» Cto Rept.? 803 (reported in 1938)* where the doctrine was announced that states by com- pact may divide the waters of an interstate stream, even though rights un- der appropriations recognized by the state laws are thereby denied. This case set at rest the fear in the minds of many familiar with the subject that compacts between states were not effective as against prior appropria- tions within a state. The Court in that case saids -51- |