OCR Text |
Show RIO GRANDE, COLORADO, TIJ UANA TREATY 481 325) (Gollbran project,-Colorado); May 28,1954 (68 Stat. 143) (con- solidation of Davis and Parker dam projects, Arizona, California and Nevada); August 31, 1954 ^68 Stat. 1045) (Palo Verde weir, Cali- fornia) ; April 11,1956 (70 Stat. 105) (Colorado River storage project and participating projects); June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96) (San Juan- Chama project, Colorado-New Mexico); August 16, 1962 (76 Stat. 389) (Fry ingpan-Arkansas project, Colorado); August 10, 1964 (78 Stat. 386) (emergency works "for the purpose of controlling floods on the lower Colorado River in accordance with article 13 of the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico"); September % 1964 (78 Stat. 848) (Dixie project, Utah); October 22, 1965 (79 Stat. 1068) (Southern Nevada water project; September 30, 1968 (82 Stat. 885) (Colorado River Basin project). For Federal statutes related to the Rio Grande portion of the treaty, see the Acts of October 5,1949 (63 Stat. 701) (development of power facilities at Falcon dam); June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255) (disposition of energy generated at Falcon dam); July 7, 1960 (74 Stat. 360) (construction of Amistad dam); December 23, 1963 (77 Stat. 475) (marketing of Amistad Dam power production). Related compacts.-The texts of the Colorado River, Pecos River, Rio Grande, and Upper Colorado River Basin compacts appear at, respectively, pp. 53ff, 238ff, 272ff, and 339ff ante. Litigation.-In Hidalgo County Water Control and Improvement District v. Hedrick, 226 Fed. (2d) 1 (C.A. 5th, 1955), cert. den. 350 U.S. 983 (1956), the plaintiffs based their claim for declaratory relief and an injunction on Article 9 of the above treaty. Their complaint was that the defendants had diverted and used Rio Grande water for irrigation without the determination by the United States Section of the Commission called for by paragraph (b) of that article and that these diversions and uses had begun subsequent to the coming into effect of the treaty. The Court summarized the claims of the parties thus (at p. 5): "It is apparent that the original claims of the plaintiffs had their origin under appropriative rignts for use on lands not adjacent to the river, while the defendants claim riparian rights based upon owner- ship of land adjoining the river. The primary issue arises from the assertion by the plaintiffs that they have a right, created or protected by the treaty, to continue to divert and use the waters of the Rio Grande to the same extent as was done by them at the time of the treaty date without any diminution of such waters by the defendants. The defendants counter with the position that their riparian rights were at all times paramount to the appropriative rights of the plain- tiffs, that such rights were vested property rights, that it was not intended that the treaty should create or protect any individual rights to water or the use thereof, and that if the treaty be construed to give it the effect of lessening the incidents of the riparian ownerships of defendants, the treaty provision so construed would be a deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." TheOourt then said (at p. 7): "The treaty apportioned the water of the Rio Grande and allocated the share that might be diverted and used on each side of the river, but without making or intending to make any provision as to how or |