OCR Text |
Show -2- in our jurisprudence. Kansas in 1901 sued to enjoin Colorado from diverting water from the Arkansas river. Colorado in its answer alleged that it recognized the appropriation as opposed to riparian doctrine, and asserted the right of its residents to appropriate the water of the stream. The United States intervened and set forth the federal claims to the waters of the stream. The court after denying the contentions of the United States and balancing the benefits to Colorado and the detriments to Kansas held that the complaining state had not made out a case entitling it to a decree. In 1911 Wyoming sued Colorado to enjoin a contemplated transportation of water out of the basin of the Laramie river, a tributary of the North Platte. Colorado asserted that the proposed diversion was within its equitable share of the stream flow. This dispute has resulted in four opinions of the United States Supreme Court, the last of which was rendered in 191+0 (Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U* S. 1+19, 266 U. S. U9^> 298 U. S. 573, 309 u. s. 572) c In Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 51 S. Ct. 286, Connecti- cut objected to a transbasin diversion by Massachusetts for domestic purposes. The court found no substantial injury and dismissed the case. New Jersey y. New York 283 U. S. 336, 51 S. Ct. I4.78, was a bill to enjoin New York "from diverting water from the Delaware river for domestic purposes. The court entered a decree limiting the amount of the diversions. In Arizona T^Califfornia, 283 U. S. i+23, 51 S. Ct. 522, Arizona sued the states, which had entered into the Colorado River Compact, and the Secretary of the Interior, alleging the unconstitutionally of the Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act and sought redress against the threatened invasion of Arizona's alleged rights to prohibit or permit appropriation under its own laws of the unappropriated water of the Colorado river flowing within the state. The court upheld the federal Act and the Compact and, after saying that assumed potential invasions of Arizona's rights were not sufficient to warrant a basis for any relief, dismissed the bill. Subseouently Arizona again sued the Colorado river basin state (Arizona v* California, 298 U. S. 556, 56 S» Ct. 8I4.8), seeking a judicial apportionment of the unappropriated waters of the river and the court again dismissed the bill upon the ground that no justiciable controversy was presented. Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 56 S. Ct. 5I4.O, involved the Washington claim of wrongful diversions of the waters of the Walla Walla river by Oregon. The court found that there was no substantial injury and dismissed the bill. The controversy between Colorado and Kansas over the waters of the Arkansas River was again before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383, (decided December 6, I9I4.3-f°** decree see 3^2 U. S. 708J7 This suit was brought by Colorado to enjoin the prosecution by private Kansas interests of certain-actions instituted by them in the United States District Court for the district of Colorado against private Colorado water users. Kansas by counter-claim asserted that Colo- rado water uses had increased since the dismissal of the Kansas bill in . Kansas ?, Colorado, supra, and requested the entry of a decree apportioning |