OCR Text |
Show As the States began to comprehend the inadeauacy of decisions and the rigidity of precedents set by the United States Supreme Court, strictly limited under its own interpretation of the federal constitution to the de- cision of controversies between the States over existing facts or injuries actually threatened, the suggestions of that tribunal and the invitations of Congress for the States to Settle such differences by negotiation and compact bore fruit-in some quarters at least. The La Plata River Compact between New Mexico and Colorado-^ was approved by Congress early in the year 1925» It provides for an equitable, division of all the waters of that stream within the two States during each year except the period between December 1st and February 15th when "each State shall have the unrestricted right to the use of all water which may flow within its boundaries." But, following the Mexican-American treaty for equitable di- vision of the waters of the Rio Grande, the La Plata River Compact declares that "peculiar" physical conditions are the basis for the compact, "and neither of the signatory States concedes the establishment of any general principle or precedent by the concluding of this compact." Very soon after its approval of the La Plata River Compact, Congress ex- tended an advance consent and invitation for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana to divide and apportion, by compact, the available waters of the Columbia River and tributary streams within the irrigable and mining areas of those States.^79 This has not yet been done. A like congressional invi- tation, also still unused, was extended to Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon to negotiate a compact ''. » .providing for an equitable division and apportionment among such States of the water supply of the Snake River and of streams tributary thereto."18° The South Platte River Compact between Colorado and Nebraska became ef- fective by congressional act of Maroh 8, 1926. It divides the river into two sections; allots the waters in each between the two States for agricultural uses during the growing season and for storage during the rest of the year; recognizes and leaves undisturbed the existing uses at the date the compact became effective, but pledges each State to prevent future appropriation with- in its borders beyond the limits permitted by the compact; stipulates for deviation in unusual ciroumstanoes from the usual division of water agreed and convincing proof which would move the; Court to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another. 1 7ft The conpact is set out in full in the act approving it. Act of Jan. 29, 1925, c, 110, 1+3 Stat. at L. 796. Consult, also: N.M. Laws 1923, c. 7, p. 7; Colo. Laws I923, c. 191, p. 696. The compact provides that: "The State of New Mexico shall not at any time be entitled to receive nor shall the State of Colorado be required to deliver any water not then necessary for beneficial use in the State of New Mexico*" A similar provision appears in the South Platte River Compact, infra, footnote #181. W^ot of Mar. i+, 1925, c. 53U, h3 Stat. at L. 1268; Act of Apr. 13, 1-926, c. 129, hk Stat. at L. 2kl* |