OCR Text |
Show -6- to exercise her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply." 6. EXISTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRESERVED VilHEREVER POSSIBLE. In all of the interstate water cases, it appears that the United, States Supreme Court has followed, the principle that the existing economic development should be protected :and preserved wherever possible. This was a controlling factor in the Kansas v. Colorado case. In the more recent decision in the case of Washington v« Oregon, supra, the principle of protecting existing rights is made ths very basis of the court's decision. This is clearly shown by the court's summary of its con- clusions (297 IT. S. 529, 56 S. Ct. 5ii5) which we quote? "The case comes down to this* The court is asked upon uncertain evidence of prior right and still more uncertain evidence of damage to destroy possessory interests enjoyed without challenge for over half a century. In such circum- stances, an injunction would not issue if the contest were between private parties, at odds about a boundary. Still less will it issue here in a contest between states, a oontest to be dealt with in the large and ample way that alone be-comes the dignity of the litigants concerned." Likewise in Wyoming v» Colorado, supra, the court in determining the conflicting claims showed an unmistaTEab'le intent to preserve and protect the existing uses of water. To'do this, the court carefully reviewed the existing rights in both states and after deducting the amount of water which it found necessary to satisfy those rights from the available water supply held tha-fc only the remainder was available for the Colorado diversion which Wyoming sought to enjoin. Ano-ther application of this principle occurred in the Great Lakes drainage case (Wisconsin v. Illinois, supra), wherein the court enjoined diversions by Illinois so as to rest*or*e the navigable capacity of Lake Michigan to its proper level. In the water pollution cases of Missouri v. Illinois., supra, and New York v. New Jersey, supra, the ..court refused to restrain the existing uses of the water for sewage disposal purposes. 7. IN ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA COURT REFUSED TO ACT IN ASSUMED POTENTIAL INVASION OF STATE'S RIGHTS. In the case of Arizona v. California, 283 U. S, U63-46I4., 51 S. Ct. 528, the State of Arizona sought relief against the threatened invasion of its alleged.rights to prohibit or permit appropriations under its own laws of the unappropriated waters of the Colorado river flowing within tHe state. The United States Supreme Court after holding that the contention could not prevail because it was based upon an assumed potential invasion of Arizona's rights saidj "There is no occasion for determining now ArizonaTs rights . to interstate or local waters which have not yet been, and which may never be, appropriated.** |