OCR Text |
Show to protection for such appropriations. Colorado claimed the right to the use of all the waters originating within its boundaries, by reason of her sover- eignty of Statehood* The Constitutions of both States recognize only the doctrine .of prior appropriation and beneficial use. Colorado claimed (a) wasteful use by Wyoming, (b) that Colorado uses vrould be more economical and more productive* (c) that the proposed tunnel diversion was an appropriation whose priority dated from 1902, and (d) thai; Colorado uses would not deplete the river at the State line beyond the demands of Wyoming priorities, which were earlier. There was an issue as to the sen- iority of appropriations in '.'yoming, as compared with the tunnel appropria- tions, and it was not alone oxi issue of State sovereignty claim to the water*> The Court held that the' doctrine of prior appropriation, recognized by both States, was applicable to a determination of the equities claimed by "both States in the waters of the Laramie River and furnished "the only basis which is consonant with the principles of right and equitable application to such a controversy as this." Many attorneys hove concluded that, in this decision, the Court decided the case strictly upon the principles of "priority of appro- priation and use." Other authorities, however, are firmly of the opinion (a) that the principle underlying the decision was that of "equality of right" between the States and that of "equitable apportionment" of the benefits pro- vided by the river5 and (b) that a determination of the controversy, founded upon priority of appropriation and beneficial use in the two States under the doctrine announced in their respective Constitution, would conform to the fundamental principle of equitable apportionment. In this connection, the Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in the Kansc.s-Colorado5 decision of equitable apportionment between the two States, adopting as a basis of equitable apportionment the doctrine of appropriation* recognized in both States, regardless of State lines. In the case of Connecticut vs. Massachusetts' concerning a proposed di- version from the drainage area of the Connecticut River to provide water for the metropolitan area of Bostons Mass., Connecticut set up its ri;;ht under* the riparian doctrine, which both.States recognized, to the undiminished flow of the river, and alleged that, to take water entirely out of the Connecti-cut River B^sin, would impair the navigability of the Connecticut- River, increase danger from pollution, and take away flood rights. In rendering its opinion, the Court clearly indicated abandonment of the riparian doctrine as applica- ble to interstate questions, and again enunciated the principle of "equit- able apportionment" in the following language. "* * * but the laws in respect of riparian rights that happen to be ef- fective for the time being in both states do not necessarily constitute a dependable guide or just basis for the decision of controversies, such as that herein presented. Such disputes are to be settled on tine basis of equality of right, but this is not to say that there must be ^Connecticut vs. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660 (decided February 2h» 1931). -83- |