OCR Text |
Show The "bill was dismissed without prejudice to Arizona to make application for relief in case the water stored in Lake Ho; d was used in any way such as to interfere with the enjoyment of Arizona of any right already perfected, or with the right of Arizona to make additional legal appropriations. All the citations affecting this case 41 42 43 involve the Colorado River Compact and Boulder Canyon Project Act. walla Walla River Suit. - The purpose of the suit 32 as disclosed by the allegations of the complaint and the relief sought, was to have the court determine the relative rights of the State of Washington and Oregon to the use of the waters of the Walla Walla River and its tributaries, flowing with- in both States, and to enjoin the State of Oregon from continued interfer- ence with the rights of the State of Washington. The State of Washington al- legedj (a) That the continued diversions of water from the tributaries of the Walla Walla River in Oregon would work irreparable injury to the State of Washington and its land owners unless restrained; (b) that both States* by their statutes and decisions of their Courts, recognize the doctrine of ri- parian ownership, and thrt the owner of land riparian to a stream is entitled to his proportionate share of the waters of such stream for the purpose of* irrigation, subject to the requirement that such riparian user shall bene- ficially apply such water within a reasonable time; and (c) that each of said States further recognizes the doctrine of appropriation whereby the first ap- propriator in time is first in right subject only to vested riparian rights. In the same term in which it rendered the decision in the second Wyoming vs. Colorado suit," the Court illuminated the principles which would actuate it in equitable apportionment. In Washington vs. Oregon,32 decided March 2, IQ36, both States stipulated for the purposes of that case that the individual rights of the respective landowners and'water owners concerned in both States are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, so that question was not in issue. In deciding against Washington, the Court related as impelling consid- erations thatj due to the porous and grr.velly formation in the river-bed, only a small portion of water would go by evon if the da;::s of Oregon users were removed. "Fifty years of long established possession and uninterrupted use by the Oregon appropriators" were repeatedly commented on and given weight by the Court, since, said Justice Cardozo, to restrain the diversion «* * * would bring distress and even ruin to a long-estrblished settXe- ment of tillers of the soil for no other or better purpose than to vin- dicate a barren right. This is not the high equity that moves the con- science of the court in giving judgment between states * * *. In de- fault of reasons for removal more urgent and compelling the tillers of the soil will be left where they have settled. "In such circumstances, an injunction wo-* Id not issue if the con- ^Arizona vs. California, et al. , 283 U. S. -l£3 (1931) 292 U.S. 558 <1936) M-2o-reeson vs. Imperial Irrigation District, 59 Fed. 2d, 52>'» ^United States vs« California, 295 U. S. Ilk (1935) -99- |