| OCR Text |
Show In this case* as in the case of Arizona vs» California et al.$* the Court held that it was without power to render a declaratory judgment to prevent the consummation of that which is merely feared as likely to occur. The Court dismissed the bill of complaint of Hew Jersey without prejudice to the equities of New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the waters of that stream basin. Ths Court held that* n* * * although one state has the physical power to cut off all water within its jurisdiction from flowing into a river constituting a boundary between states» the exercise of such power to the destruction of the interests of the lower state* could not be tolerated* and like- wise that neither will a lower state be permitted to require an upper state to give up its power altogether in order that the river may flow to the lower state undiminished; that both states have relative and substantial interests in an interstate river, which must be reconciled as best they may be»" This case involved a set of facts similar to those in Connecticut vs. Massachusetts^ in this case, the Court again applied the doctrine of equitable apportionments and stated that "* * * the effort is always to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas"; also that "* * * the removal of water to a different watershed obviously must bo allowed at tines unless states are to be deprived of the most beneficial use on formal grounds. " Colorado River Suit, - In this case,30 Arizona filed its bill of com- plaint against the Secretary of the Interior* the State of California, and the other States of the Colorado River' Basin* alleging among other com- plaints, that the construction of a dam in the Colorado River at Black Can-' yon would invade the sovereign rights of the State of Arizona by diverting a part o± the waters of the Colorado River for consumptive use elsewhere, and thus would interfere with the beneficial consumptive use by the State of Arizona of the unappropriated waters of the river flowing in that State. The Court held* (a) That the authority of the Secretary to construct the dam (later named the "Hoover Dam") was a valid exercise of the power of Congress ,$ since the purposes enumerated included that of improving naviga- tion; (b) that there was then no present threat of any act by the defen- dants which would interfere with the enjoyment by Arizona of any present or future appropriation of water out of the Colorado River oy that State; and (c) that Arizona had not constructed any diversion works to divert the waters claimed. In this connection it is of interest to note that the Court clearly defined the status of an "appropriator of water11 as follows! 11 * * * to appropriate water means to take end divert 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 ac- quir-e under such laws a vested right to take and divert from the same souroe, and to use and consume the same quantity of water annually fore-ver, subject only to the right of prior appropriates*" |
