OCR Text |
Show by certiorari under Section 237 (b)» Th© Court held that jurisdiction over controversies concerning rights in interstate strearis is not different from those concerning boundaries, and whether the water of an interstate stream must be apportioned between the two States is a question of Federal common law upon which neither the statutes nor the decisions of either State can be conclusive. likevdse the Court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of the Compact even if New Mexico and Co lore do were not parties to the suit and could not be me.de parties. The State of Colorado was the pioneer in the movement to settle disputes over irrigation waters between States by the Compact method. The La Plata is a small stream with a comparatively short run-off, but all of the questions involved in the determination of the validity and effect of such a compact were presented in this case. For nearly ten years the matter was litigated in the Courts 9 while the validity of all of Colorado1s interstate compacts hung in the balance. Now (1939) it has been judicially determined that the States, through commissioners conversant with the problems of irrigation, may divide the waters of western rivers equitably and intelligently, and thus long drawn- out and expensive litigation possibly may be avoided. With the relevant facts at hand, any group of fair-minded men may make a compact that will protect and preserve the interests of the people fairly and adequately. INTERSTATE COMPACTS Settlement of controversies between States, in regard to the use of waters of interstate streams, has been effected in a number of cases, not- ably in the arid region, by compacts between the States involved. Such com- pacts are permitted under the Constitution, but must be ratified by the Leg- islatures of the compacting States and approved by the Congress of the United States before becoming effective. There appears to be a disagreement between authorities concerning thu© necessity for the compacting States first to obtain the consent of Congress before entering into negotiations. Many authorities take the position tixat prior consent of the Congress is not essential when the compact is later ap- proved by Congress. Congress may enforce any conditions it deems desirable for conserving the interests of the Federal Government prior to approving any interstate compact. In each case involving the Western States, the President has designated a representative of the United States to participate in the negotiations between States, and this representative is usually de- signated by the representatives of the States to act as chairman of the Tn- terstate Commission. The Keeks Act of March 1, 1911 # provides^ "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of th^ 6lWeeks Act of March 1, 1911, 36 Stat. L. 961. -Ill- |