OCR Text |
Show IN TEE SUPREIE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ¦. , ¦ ¦ October Term, 1937. (3oi+ u, s. 92). HINDERLIDER, STATE ENGINEER, et al. v. ¦ LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO No. 1+37. Argued February 10, 11, 1938.- Decided April 25, 1938. 1. The water of an interstate stream, used beneficially in each of the two States through which it flows, must be eauitably apportioned between the two. P. 101. . The claim that on interstate streams the upper State has such owner- ship or control of the whole stream as entitles it to divert all the water, regardless of any injury or prejudice to the lower State, has been consistently denied bythis Court. P. 102. 2. A decree of a state court oan not confer a right in the water of an. inters-feate stream in excess of the Staters equitable portion of such water. P. 102. • *^Syllabus 3* A decree of a state court adjudicating to a local user a right in the water of an interstate stream in excess-of the State's equitable portion thereof is not res judioata as to another State and its citizens who claim -the right to divert water from the stream in such other State, and who were not parties to the proceedings. **, 103* * h* It is not essential to the validity of a compact between States for the apportionment of the water of an interstate stream that there be judi- cial of quasi-judicial decision in respect of existing rights. P. 10l+. 5» Whether* the apportionment of the water of an interstate stream be made by compact between the upper and lower States with the consent of Con- gress or by a decree of this Court, the apportionment is binding upon the citizens of each State and all water claimants, including grantees whose r*ights antedate the compact or decree. P. 106. 6. A compact between two States for apportionment of the water of an inter- state stream may provide for division of the water at times, and at other times for the use of the entire flow by one State or the other in alternating periods; and authority may validly be delegated to the States' engineers to determine when the use should be rotated. P. 108. So held where the evidence conclusively established that, at the times when rotation was determined upon, the stream could in that way be more- efficiently used. |