OCR Text |
Show "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United .States by citizens of another state* or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.11 Neither may a citizen of a State prosecute a suit in law or equity against another state;31 (n) That "the governing rule is that this court will not assert its extraordinary power to control the conduct of one state in the suit of anoth- er, unless the threatened invasion of rights is of such serious magnitude and established by clear and convincing evidence 21# 3^ (o) ^Injunction issues, to prevent existing or presently threatened injuries will not be granted against something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time in the future,"'* °* 30, 32 That "the burden on the complaining state of sustaining its allegations is much greater than that generally imposed upon a complainant in an ordinary suit between pri- vate parties j31 (p) The laws in respect to riparian rights that happen to be effective 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 presented here* The rules of the common law on that subject do not obtain in all of the States of the Union* and there are variations in their application. The doctrine of appropriation prevails in some States, and every State is free to change its laws covering riparian ownership and to permit the appropria- tion of flowing waters for such purposes as it may deem wise;'* ^ (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 inter- state stream;3 (r) That, where the Court has by decision equitably divided the v;atc?rs of an interstate stream between two States, the apportionment or quantum received by each State may be administered for the benefit of its approprLa- tors, in accordance with its own laws, without regard to the interests of the other State, so long as the aggregate quantity so allocated is not ex- ceeded;^ (s) That the appropriators or water users under a Federal reclamation project obtain whatever rights they may have to the use of water from the States in which such projects are located, and the continued enjoyment of such right is subject to the laws of such State;-7' ^2 JlNorth Dakota vs. Minnesota, 263 U. S* 365, (1923). 32rJashington vs. Oregon, 297 U« S» 517 (decided March 2, 1936). 33iJebraska vs« Wyoming and Colorado, Impleaded Defendant, 295 ^» S» 1*0 (decided April 1, 1935). -91- |