Laserfiche WebLink
<br />: <br /> <br />( 21 ] <br /> <br /> <br />$ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />BtBtes intervened,in elI'ect claiming national control of the watenJ <br />of W....tern .treamll to be administered under the doctrine of <br />prior appropriation. In anower to the primary question of na. <br />tional control, regtU'dleftl! of the rights of the State., inter _, <br />Justire Brewer, after observing that the United Statoo had an <br />interest in the public lands withiu the Western Stat"" and might <br />legislate for their reclamation. .ubject to state laws, thWl d;;,~ <br />of the claim of national control of Western intel'lltate streams: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"Turning to the enumeration of the powers granted W Con. <br />gress by tbe eighth _tion of the tlrst article of the Constitution, <br />it is enough to say that no one of them by any implication retei'll <br />to th.. reclamation of arid land. . . . No independent and unm..n. <br />tioned l>owl'r pa~R{'fl to the National Government Or" ran right- <br />fully be exerciSP<1 b,v the UongrefiS. ~ . .,. But it is useless to pur- <br />~11{' the inquiry further in this direetion. It i1-l t'Ilough for the <br />purpose of this ra.e that e.al'h ~tate has full juriadktion over th.. <br />lands within its bOl'de~l induding the beds of streams and other <br />waters. (Citing eases). tI . * It may determine for itself whether <br />the romnlOn law rule in reRpHet to riparian rightA or that doc- <br />trine whi('h obtains in the arid regioll'" of the ~Ve@t of the appro- <br />priation of warel'8 for the purpose. of irrigatiou shall control. <br />Cong-resf.: (':m nnt enforce either I'ule npon auy State. '"' '* Il One <br />rardinal rule, uuderlyiui( all the relatiou. of the fltares to eaeh <br />other. i. that of tbe equality of right. Earll fltare stands on <br />the same level with all the re.t. It rau iml..,.e its own legi.la- <br />tion on no one of the otherR. and is bound to yield its own views <br />to none," (Kansas v. ('olorado, 2(10 C. 8., 40, 87-07.) <br /> <br />In ('on(')ucling the uooye dt'chdon, the B-upreme Court dis- <br />missed the ('aRe witbout prejudice to the right of Kausas to <br />iIH'ltitnte new pro('eedin~, "whencw'r it Hhall apear' Olat through <br />a. material inCrP11s{' in the depletion of the waters of the Arkansas <br />by Colorado * * . thf' ~lIbstalltial interests of KUIHU1.fo: al"e btdng <br />injured to the extent of destroyin~ the equitable apportionmr-...ut <br />of HIP b('nt'f1t~ hetwren 1hl.' two Rtatt'~ re~mlting from the flow of <br />the ri"er." (2(10 F. 8., 41;. 117.) <br /> <br />l Note: ~iIlce the forf'1roing HH'morandum was wnttpn the <br />F. ~, t:;upreme Court ctedded, in \\'yoming v. Colorado, that in <br />('a~ betwL't:n two ~tateN both of whieh recognizp the dodrine of <br />JlI'ior appJ'oVr1ation as a matter of Ioeallaw, the Court will apply <br />the fundamental pr'indpl(,B of tilt' doctrine in the allocation of <br />the watf'rl'l of a rivpr l.'oUlJllon to the two Ktate.... and will so <br />apPOl.tion the drpendalJle average annual flow tetW('eIl the States <br />tlIat the older Pl'lt"fthliBht'd u~~.... in hoth States will reeeive tit'st <br />protpdion, The do('trine !'Ill HnIlouIlc'pd leaves the 'Vestern ~:Hates <br />to 8. rivah.y and a {'ontt'~t of :-lpeed for future (h~velopmellt, The <br />TIpper Rtate ha~ hut one altC'rllutive, that of u~in~ every lllf'aDS <br />tD rt'tarfl rlfl\..('lopfllf~nt in thp IO\.\'(lr ~t.at(' until the nsee within <br /> <br />, <br />