OCR Text |
Show -1- PRINCIPLES OF EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF INTERSTATE STREAMS* 1. EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT BY COURT OR COMPACT. Since adjustment of •water controversies among states is of great importance in meeting the problems under discussion, a review of the principles of equitable apportion- ment of water among states is included. The Supreme Court of the United States in New Jersey V New York et al», 283 U. S. 336, at page 342 has said "A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have " power over it." This rationing or the apportionment of waters of an interstate stream may be accomplished by the compact method or in an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of the United States, The Supreme Court decisions which have thus far been rendered on this subject have established the leading principles of equitable apportionment. We note them here. 2. COURT HAS PASSED UPON SIXTEEN STATE CONTROVERSIES OVER INTERSTATE WATERS. Our research indicates that the United States Supreme Court has passed upon some sixteen controversies between states over interstate waters. In South Carolina v. Georgia, 93, U. S. 4* 3, L. Ed. 782, the complaint was that the defendant state had obstructed navigation by permitting a dam to be built on a stream within its borders. Tennessee v. Arkansas, 249 U. S. 588, 39 S. Ct. 385, concerned the alleged flooding of the complainant's land by water backed up by levees along the Mississippi river. The cases of North Dakota v. Minnesota and South Dakota v. Minnesota, 256 U. S. 220, 4 S. Ct. 626, 263 U. S. 365, kk S. Ct. 138, dealt with alleged flood damage caused by the raising of the level of a lake in the defendant state. Alleged- pollution resulting from sewage disposal was the basis of action in the cases of Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 21 S. Ct. 331, 200 U. S. i+96., 26 S. Ct. 268, and New YorkT. New Jersey, 2)4.9 U. S. 202, 39 S. Ct. 26l, 256 u. s. 296, J+i s. ct. 492. . In the remaining ten cases the interstate disputes involved the diversion and use of water from interstate streams or lakes. In the Great Lakes drainage case (Wisconsin et al v. Illinois et al, 278 U. S. 3&7* h9 s» Ct ? I63j 281 U. S. 179, 50 S. Ct. 266), the court limited diversions from Lake Michigan in order to restore the navigable capacity to its proper level. All the other decisions involved interstate streams. The first of tliese, that of Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. i+6, 27 S. Ct. 655, is a true landmark ?Section XII of Report entitled, "Preservation of Integrity of State Water Laws," by National Reclamation Association, October, 1943• |