OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 669 water of all lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manu- facturing purposes subject to existing rights." Colorado was not at first included m this act, but was brought in by an amendatory act. Next came the Act of March 3,1891, c. 561, § 18,26 Stat. 1095, granting rights of way through the public lands and reservations for canals and ditches to be used for irrigation purposes, and containing a proviso saying, "the privilege herein granted shall not be construed to interfere with the control of water for irrigation and other purposes under au- thority of the respective States or Territories." Of the legislation thus far recited it was said, in United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 706: "Obviously by these acts, so far as they extended, Congress recognized and assented to the appropriation of water in contravention of the common law rule as to continuous flow"; and again, "the obvious purpose of Congress was to give its assent, so far as the public lands were concerned, to any system although in contravention to the common law rule, which permitted the appropriation of those waters for legitimate industries." June 17,1902, c. 1093,32 Stat. 388, the National Keclamation Act was passed, under which the United States entered upon the construction of extensive irrigation works to be used in the reclamation of large bodies of arid public lands in the western States. Its eighth section de- clared : "Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Terri- tory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof: Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appur- tenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right." The words which we have itali- cized constitute the only instance, so far as we are advised, in which the legislation of Congress relating to the appropriation of water in the arid land region has contained any distinct mention of interstate streams. The explanation of this exceptional mention is to be found in the pendency in this court at that time of the case of Kansas v. Colo- rado, wherein the relative rights of the two States, the United States, certain Kansas riparians and certain Colorado appropriators and users in and to the waters of the Arkansas River, an interstate stream, were thought to be involved. Congress was solicitous that all questions re- specting interstate streams thought to be involved in that litigation should be left to judicial determination unaffected by the act-in other words, that the matter be left just as it was before. The words aptly reflect that purpose. The decision in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, was a pioneer in its field. On some of the questions presented it was intended to be and is comprehensive, and on others it was intended to be within narrower limits, the court saying, "the views expressed in this opinion are to be confined to a case in which the facts and the local law of the two States |