WSP12253 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[ 13 ] States to the burden of arresting its development and of de. nying to its inhabitants the use of a provision which nature has supplied entirely within its territory. The recognition of such a right is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain. "The rules, principles, and precedents Of international law imposed no duty or obligation upon the United States of deny- ing to its inhabitants the use of the water of that part af the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States although such use results in red'ucing the volume of water in tb,e river below the point where it ceases to be entirel)' within the United States." (21 Ops, Atty. Gen., 274.) For a full discussion of international rights upon the Colo-' rado River, see Appendix, pages 318-343, part 2, Hearings Be- fore Oommittee 011 Irrigation of Arid Lands, House of Repre- sentatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session. While by all rules of internatianal law the upper nation is entitled to make full use of the waters of an international stream rising wholly within the borders of the upper nation, neverthe- less such matters are usually settled by treaty in the same man- ner as the settlement between the United States and Mexico re- specting the use and benefit of the waters of the Rio Grande (above cited), wherein it is provided for an "equitable appor- tionment" of the waters of the stream between the two Govern- ments. The rule of equitable apportionment applies to the settle- men by the Supreme Court of controversies between States over rivers common to, two or more States of the Union, (Kansas v. CalOl'ada, 2'06 U, S., 46, 117.) This equitable apportionment of the waters of an interstate river may be made by one of two methods: (1) By interstate "compact or agreement" between the States, by consent of Congress; and (2) By suit between the States before the United States Su- preme Court. The latter method is the substitute, under our form of gov- ernment, for war between the States. In other words, were it not for the provisions of our Constitution the States might set- tle their d'ifferences over interstate rivers by resort to arms. But by the terms of the Constitution the right to resort to settlement by force was surrendered, and in lieu thereof was substituted the right to submit interstate controversies to the Supreme Court in original proceedings between the States. (Kansas v. Colo- rado, 206 U. S., 46; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657.)