| OCR Text |
Show -7- INTERSTATE WATER COMPACTS* 1. COMPACT ADJUSTMENTS PREFERABLE TO LITIGATION. As pointed out in the last section of this report, resort has been had to original suits in the United States Supreme Court for the determination of interstate water con- troversies, but experience has demonstrated that the judicial process is often too fixed to meet changing social and economic issues in a given region made up of a number of states. Such litigation too often leads to confusion, delays in development and large expenditures of public funds; and frequently a judicial decree in such cases has proven to be unworkable and conducive "to further litigation. Moreover, decisions heretofore rendered by the Supreme Court on this subject, indicate that the judicial process cannot envision a future develop- ment program and provide by a declaratory judgment equitable apportionment of unused waters. Decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in interstate water controversies have served to formulate the salient principles of equitable apportionment, the application of which in a compact may accomplish a more workable and appropriate apportionment of waters among states for present and future beneficial use. Continued litigation, involving the resources of great river basins, in the end is apt to incur an extension of federal jurisdiction and centralized authority in some form. The states should fully realize that if they are to exercise their legitimate functions respecting the water resources of the West, they must be active in amicably adjusting controversies over them. 2. THE VALIDITY OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS. The validity of interstate water compacts was sustained in the case of Hinderlider et al v« La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (302 U. S. 6J4B, decided in 1937) • Principles announced by this decision were summarized by Wells A. Hutchins thusj^ (a) "As each State is entitled only to an equitable share of the wa-fcer of an interstate stream, an adjudication decree in either State cannot confer rights in excess of such share, and parties in the other State are free to challenge claims that under the decree all the water can be taken from the stream." (b) "Adjustment of controverted rights may be made by compact withotrt a judicial or quasi-judicial determination of existing rights, as well as by a suit in the Supreme Court. The Court has recommended that such matters be adjusted by compact, in order to avoid the difficulties incident to litigation." * Section XIII of Report entitled, "Preservation of Integrity of State Water Laws," by National Reclamation Association, October, 19U3* Misc. Pub. No. Ip.8, U. S. D. A., "Selected Problems in the Law of Water Rights in the West."' Wells A. Hutchins, pp. Z+.12-JL4.I3 • |
