OCR Text |
Show Other compacts for equitable division of interstate waters are in the making* Congress has indicated its assent to division and apportionment of waters of the Rio Grande, San Juan and Las Animas rivers between Colorado I and New Mexico;185a and a temporary compact between those States and Texas'; to preserve the present status on the Rio Grande until a permanent compact can be made is now before Congress for ratification.186 Congress also has before it a bill for its consent to compacts between Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah dividing and apportioning waters of the rivers Colorado, Green, Bear. or Yampa, White, San Juan and Dolores»1°7 Further congressional consent has been given for New Mexioo, Oklahoma and Texas to divide, by compact, their part of the Rio Grande, the Pecos, the Canadian or Red River "and of the streams tributary thereto and of all other streams in which such States are jointly interested * 188 Congress is also willing that, in like manner, waters of the Cimarron River be divided between New Mexico and Oklahoma, and waters of the Arkansas River between Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas; and that Arizona and New Mexico shall divide between them the waters of the Gila and San Francisco rivers A&9 All of these advance "consents" of Congress, however, amount to no more than declarations of intention; as submission of the com- pacts, when made, to Congress for further approval is uniformly required by the preliminary consenting acts. Of like effect are similar acts of Congress declaring various water courses non-navigable and, therefore, under control of the States, but carefully reserving in Congress the right of repeal*190 To "bring this review^1 up to the year 1930 there remain for consider-* at ion one United States Supreme Court decision and one water compact, each the of complaint is a general and specific denial except as to formal averments and the intention of New York City to take the water it needs* Can New York be compelled to exhaust its intrastate waters before resorting to an inter- state stream? If the proposed diversion is permissible, must New York pay compensa-tion for injury to prior and existing uses of the lower Delaware by New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware? What constitutes a reasonable di- version from the watershed of a navigable stream by a State or city charged with the governmental duty of supplying its inhabitants with water for house- hold use and consumption? The State of Pennsylvania has intervened for the protection of its interests in this litigation. 50 Sup. Ct. 151, 74 L. Ed. (Adv. Ops.) 231 (Jan. 6, 1930). 185a-Act of Mar. 2, I929, c. 520, 1+5 Stat. at L. 1502, •LDOSenate Bill 1501, 71st Congress, First Session., 18?Senate Bill IO58, 71st Congress, First Session 1 Act of Mar.. 2, I929, c. 521, I4.5 Stat. at L. 15O2« ¦ , ?Act of Mar. 2, I929, c. 522, I4.5 Stat. at L. 1503; Act of Mar* 2, I929, o» 538, I4.5 Stat. at L. 1517. 1Q0 ; See, for example, Act of June 2, 1926, c. I4I4.5, l+lj. Stat. at L. 681, declaring the interstate waters of Eagle Lake non-navigable, and consequently relinquished by the United States to the control of Mississippi and Louisiana, " A. few compacts, not adding to the principles evidenced by those above |