| OCR Text |
Show ject to suoh rights as the Supreme Court might decide that the States have, and to vested rights, e~ch State had full legislative power over Sage Greek while it flows within such State, In the absence of legislation, it will be assumed that the States were willing to ignore boundaries and allowed the same rights to be acquired from outside the State that could be acquired from within. RIGHT 0? SPATES TO SETTL3 INTERSTATE DIFFERENCES BY C011PACTS The right of States to divide the waters of interstate streams by the compact method was definitely determined by the U» S* Supremo Court in a de- cision handed down on April 25, 1938* ^ne validity of an interstate compact which allocated the equitable portion of the river flow to which each of -fche compacting parties and its respective citizens were entitled, had been drawn directly in question. In the decision written by llr« Justice Brandeis, the Supreme Court held that a compact approved by Congress, which apportioned the waters of an in- terstate stream equitably between the two States, was binding upon the States and upon the citizens and officials of the States, even when neither of the States vias a party to the suit.28 The La Flata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company appropriated irriga- tion waters out of the La Plata River in southwestern Colorado, and there- after in a water adjudication proceeding in the District Court of La Plata County, Colorado, received a decree for 1+1.5 cubic feet per second of water with date as of June 2, 1890. Under the Colorado constitution and statuses, relative dates of appropriation determine the rights of water users. The ditch company in this case was given the sixth priority in Water District No. 33« Tne five prior rights on the stream had been decreed a total of 19 cubic feet per second of water. Residents of New Mexico with lands capable of being irrigated from the same river had also applied the waters of that stream to a beneficial use** and in 1921 when the citizens of New Mexico protested that Colorado water users were taking so much of the stream flow that the lands in the lower State were deprived of their necessary supply, the two States determined to apportion the water equitably by exercising the power to compact* reserved to the Strtes under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Acts were passed by the Legislatures of the two States* authorizing the ap- pointment of commissioners to apportion the waters of the La Plata River equitably between them* and specifically providing that such agreement should become binding only when ratified and approved by the Legislatures of the two States and consented to by Aot of Congress. Thereafter, the Coiamis si oners for Colorado and New Mexico executed La Plata River Compact, and it was duly ratified by the Legislatures of -the two States and consented to by Act of Congress.55 55Hinderlider et al. vs. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (see Compact, p. 6ij.)« -107- |
