OCR Text |
Show -88- That the. Court "was controlled in this case by its great regard for PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS is clear from a decision rendered the same day, ex- pressly based without discussion upon the decision of this controversy be- tween the States, and holding that an irrigation company which had been per- mitted to take water during a period of years from a stream in Colorado to irrigate lands in Nebraska had acquired a PROPERTY RIGHT under the federal constitution which could not be taken away upon a plea that all the water was later wanted for use in, and by citizens of, Colorado*3-75 As neither Wyoming nor Colorado had moved to prevent appropriations along the Laramie River, made without regard for State boundary lines, before the suit between the two States was filed, the Supreme Court was fully justi- , fied by international law and the prevailing conventional practice of nations in protecting the existing uses »17& But this disposed of all the waters in controversy, and it was not necessary for theCourt to announce any rule of law to govern new appropriations from that stream in the future, of which there can be none* And it should not be assumed that theCourt indulged in such species of judicial legislation, after a scrupulous abstention through more than a century from the decision, in controversies between the States, of anything except the precise points necessary to determine their sovereign rights upon the existing state of facts at the time of adjudication. doctrine of appropriation and takes appropriate heed of the natural necessities out of which it arose. We think that doctrine lays on each of these States a duty to exercise her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply.11 259 US. 419, 484., 42 Sup* Ct. 552, 564., 66 L. Ed. 999, 1021 (1921). The Court also disclaimed any intention of forcing the policy of one S"tate or the United States upon the other State, saying: "Here the complaining State is not seeking to impose a policy of her choosing on the other State, but to have, the common policy which each enforces within her limits applied in determining their relative rights in the interstate stream.. Nor is the United States seeking to impose a policy of its choosing on either State• All that it has done has been to recognize and give its sanction to the policy which each has adopted* whether its public land holdings would enable it; t~ go further we need not consider. And here the complaining State is not seeking to interfere with a diversion which has long been practiced and under which much reclamation has been effected, but to prevent a proposed di- version for the benefit of lands as yet unreclaimed." 259 U.S. I4I9, lj.65, Lfi Sup. ct. 552, 557, 66 L* Ed. 999, 10U4. (1921). 175 Weiland v. Pioneer Irr. Co,, 259 U.S. U98, U2 Sup. Ct. 568, 66 L« Ed. 1027 (1922), aff'g 238 Fed. 519 (CCA* 8th Cir. 1922)« 176 Compare the decisions of the Swiss federal supreme court, as summariz- ed in Appendix A, Defendants' Brief, in Wyoming t. Illinois, 278, U«S. 367, 49 Sup, Ct. 163/73 L. Ed. U26 (1929), supra, footnotes #169 and 173$ "a, Aargauv. Zurich, I878, k Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundes- gerichtes jl+i "FACTS* Certain manufacturers using water power in Zurich applied to the canton for permission to increase their use of the stream above the total flow per second by building a dam and thus impounding the water of the stream at |