OCR Text |
Show -21- 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 made by Colorado in litigation concerning other interstate streams, but has been consistently denied by this Court. The rule of equitable apportionment was settled by Kansas v. -Colorado, 206 U. S. 1+6, 97* It was discussed again in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. . S. 419 466, where the Court said: "The contention of Colorado that she as a State rightfully may divert and use, as she may choose, the waters flowing within her boundaries in this interstate stream, regardless of any prejudice that this may work to others having rights in the stream below her boundary, can not be maintained. The river throughout its course in both States is but a single stream wherein each. State has an interest which should be respected by the other. A like contention was set up by Colorado in her answer in Kansas v. Colorado and was adjudged untenable. Further consideration satisfies us that the ruling was righto" And in New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 342-43, the Court said of an interstate stream "It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. New York has the physical power to cut off all the water within its jurisdiction. But clearly .the exercise of suoh a power to the destruction of the interest of lower States could not be tolerated. And on the other hand equally little could New Jersey be permitted to require New York to give up its power altogether in order that the River might come down to it undiminished. Both States have real and substantial interests in the River that must be reconciled as best they may be." The decree obviously is not res judicata so far as concerns the State of New Mexico and its citizens who claim the right to divert water from the stream in New Mexico. As they were not parties to the Colorado pro- ceedings, they remain free to challenge the claim of the Ditch Jompany that it is entitled to take in Colorado all the water of the stream and leave nothing for them.4- . Second. The declared purpose of the compact was, as the preamble recites, equitable apportionments . "The State of Colorado and the State of New Mexico, desiring to pro- vide for the eauitable distribution of the waters of the La Plata River and to remove all causes of present and future controversy between them with respect thereto, and being moved by considerations of interstate comity, pursuant to Acts of their respective legislatures, have resolved to conclude •Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 528. Compare Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 1+11, 1+12; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 2l+6 U. S. I58, 176. |