OCR Text |
Show (t) That States have the unquestioned authority to agree upon the di- vision and use of the waters of an interstate stream even if such division and use may have the effect of disturbing or destroying the rights of indi- vidual appropriators which had theretofore been recognized by the laws of either State;28 (u) That the highest use of interstate waters is for drinking and other domestic purposes;7 (y) That States may select sources of water supply, provided no sub- stantial damage is done to sister riparian States;8 (w) That release of compensatory water depends upon downstream river conditions and needs;8 • (x) That judicial allowance of diversions affecting navigation or navi- gable capacity is conditioned upon Federal approval.7s 8, 34 ORIGINAL CASES BETWEEN STATES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Arkansas River Suit* - Litigation between Colorado and Kansas over the waters of the Arkansas River has been practically continuous for the thirty- six years, 1904-1939» In the noted suit brought by Kansas against Colorado in 1901,35 the U« S* Supreme Court decided that, although certain irrigation interests in western Kansas had been injured by diversions of water from the Arkansas River in Colorado, such diversions by Colorado had not exceeded its equitable share of the waters of this interstate stream, and dismissed the case without prejudice to Kansas to reinstate a suit at a later date, if con- tinued diversions in her judgment justified such action. Up until 1929s Kansas failed to institute action for any relief to which that State might have felt it was entitled since the former decision. Almost immediately af- ter the decision of the former suit in 1907* administrators of certain ditches in Kansas instituted suit.in 1910 in the Federal Court for the Dis- trict of Colorado against a large number of agencies that controlled ditches and reservoirs in Colorado, impleaded in the former suit, seeking to restrain the latter from diverting water in Colorado to their alleged injury. This case is Ioiown36 as the "United States Irrigating Company vs. Graham Ditch Com- pany sui-t* This case was settled out of Court in 1916, but a later suit was instituted in the same Court in 1917 by one of the Kansas ditch companies not a pa:rty to the settlement against the same ditch companies in Colorado mentioned in the former suit37 and later amended to include ditches and 3^u3.sconsin vs. Illinois et al., 278 U. S. 395 (1929); 281 U. S- 179 (1930k 289 TJ. S. 395 (1933). ^Cexnsas vs. Colorrdo, 206 U* s. h6 (1906); 51 L. Ed. 956; 2? S. Ct. 665; same case on demurrer, I85 U. s. 125; ht> I« Ed. 838; 22 S. Ct. 552. 36gnited States Irrigating Company vs. Graham Ditch Company (case was compromised and did not go to decision). 37Fi.nney Co. Water Users Association vs« Graham Ditch Co. et al., 193V Colorado.,, 1 Fed. 2d, 65O. n -92- |