OCR Text |
Show court will determine what is an. equitable apportionment of the use of such waters." It is noteworthy that the Connecticut v» Massachusetts controversy involved two states, each of which adheres to the riparian rights doctrine. Connecticut asserted that the trans-basin diversion proposed by Massachusetts should be restrained because it was in violation of the principles of the riparian system. The United States Supreme Court, however, refused to apply these principles in an interstate suit and in denying the requested injunction followed the rule of equitable apportionment of benefits es- tablished by the decision in Kansas v. Colorado«. This rule was likewise followed in the case of New Jersey, v» New York, 283 U. S. 336, 3U2, 51 S. Ct. kl8> wherein the court speaking through Justice Holmes saidj "Beth states have real and substantial interests in the river that must be reconciled as best they may be, The different traditions and practices in different parts of the country may lead to varying results but the effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas." There is nothing in any of the decisions of this court in the contro- versy between Wyoming and Colorado over the waters of the Laramie river, which in any way detracts from the principle of equitable apportionment of benefits. Indeed, the first decision in that case (259 U. S. Ul9, l£ S. Ct. 552), specifically recognized the rule as laid down in Kansas V. Colorado and while saying in its opinion that in a controversy such as that presented to the court in that case the doctrine of appropriation furnished the proper basis for a decision, yet by its decree and subsequent decisions the court actually made a mass allocation to each state of what it deemed to be the state's equitable share. 5. EACH STATE OBLIGATED TO CONSERVE COMMON SUPPLY OF INTERSTATE STREiiM. Each state is obligated to conserve the common supply of an interstate stream. The United States Supreme Court in the case of 7/yoming v. Colorado, (259 U. S. I4I9, l\Bk> et seq.) pointed out that a fairly constant and . dependable water supply materially in excess of the lowest stream flow may be obtained by means of reservoirs to conserve and utilize the natural flow, and stated that it regarded this view as reasonable. The court then com- mented upon the position of Wyoming that it should not be required to pro- vide storage facilities in order that Colorado may obtain a larger amount from the common supply than would otherwise be possible, and said, (259 U. S. "Both states recognize that conservation within practicable limits is essential, in order that needless waste may be prevented and the largest feasible use may be secured. This comports with the all-prevailing spirit of the 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 |