OCR Text |
Show 766 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS I shall first discuss the contemplated decree as it affects Colorado. The Master finds: "Equity does not require any restriction upon or interference with present uses of water by Colorado within the North Platte Basin in North Park or any reduction in the present rate of transbasin expor- tation from North Park. * * * * * * * "Furthermore, reduction in Colorado use would not correspondingly enhance the supply of the other States. In fact there is no clear show- ing as to the extent of benefit to the North Platte Project or other Wyoming or Nebraska users of any limitation upon present uses in North Park." The Master concludes: "From a consideration of all of the factors bearing on those equities, my judgment is that equitable apportionment does not require any interference with present uses in North Park." After referring to possible schemes for further use of water in Colorado as constituting a threat of further depletion, he says of the threat: "It can hardly be said to be immediate." He sums up his conclusions as to Colorado as follows: "A prohibition against further expansion of irrigation in North Park seems to me recommended by consideration of (a) the insuffi- ciency of the present supply at best to more than satisfy the require- ments of presently established uses, (b) the principle laid down in Colorado v. Wyoming, (c) the consonance of such limitation with the general plan of apportionment being recommended herein. At the same time to impose a permanently fixed restriction against further irrigation development in North Park would not appear justified in view of the possibility of such future increase in supply as to render it unnecessary. The three alternatives are (1) an outright dismissal as to Colorado, (2) denial of any present relief against that state with retention of jurisdiction to grant such relief on a later showing of such continuation of present conditions of supply as to require the conclusion that they must be accepted as the measure of dependability, (3) imposition of a limitation to present uses of water with retention of jurisdiction to release the restriction if and when the 'dry cycle' shall run its course and it appears that the water supply has become such as to justify further expansion of irrigation in North Park. A reasonable argument can Jbe made for any of these three alternatives. My recommendation in line with the third alternative is that Colo- rado be limited to the irrigation of 135,000 acres, to the accumulation annually of 17,000 acre feet of storage water, and the exportation of 6,000 acre feet per annum to the South Platte basin." In the proposed decree, he would enjoin Colorado in accordance with this recommendation although, confessedly, Colorado is not di- verting, or contemplating diversion of, the waters in question. A more gratuitous interference with a quasi-sovereign State I cannot imagine. It would disregard all that we have repeatedly said to the effect that a state should not be enjoined by this Court at the suit of a sister state unless she is inflicting, or threatening immediately to inflict, grave and substantial damage upon the complainant. I cannot imagine that, as between private parties, an injunction would |