WSP12253 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. States intervened, in effect claiming national control of the waters of Western streams to be administered under the doctrine of prior appropriation. In answer to the primaq question of na- tional control; regardless of tbe rights af the States, inter sese, Justice Brewer, after observing that the United States had an interest in the public lands within tile Western States and might legislate for their reclamation, subject to State laws, thus disposed of tbe claim of national control of Western interstate streams: "Turning to the enumeration of the powers granted to Con. gress by tbe eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, it is enough to say that no one of them by any implication refers to the reclamation of arid land. . . . No independent and unmen- tioned powel' passes to the National Government or ca:n right- fully be exercised by the Congress, . . . But it is useless to pur- sue the inquiry further in this direction. It is enough for the ' purpose of this case that each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters. (Citing cases). . . . It may determine for itself whether the common law rule in respect to riparian rights or tbat doc- trine which obtains in the arid regions of the West of the appro- priation of waters for the purposes of irrigation shall control. Coqgress can not enforce eitber rule upon any State. . . . One cardinal rule, underlying all the relations of the States to each other, is that of the equality of right. Eacb State stands on the same level with all tbe rest. It can impose its own legisla- tion on no one of the others, and is bound to yield its own views to none," (Kansas v. Colorado, 206 V. S., 46, 87-97,) In concluding the. above decision, the Supreme Court dis- missed the case without prejudice to the right of Kansas to institute new proceedings, "wbenever it shall apear that through a material increase in the depletion of the waters of tbe Arkansas' by Colorado' . . the snbstantial interests of Kansas are being injured to the extent of destroying the equitahle apportionment of the benefits between the two States resulting from the flow of the river." (206 U. S., 46, 117.) (Note: Since the foregoing memorandum was written the U. S. Supreme Court decided, in Wyoming v. Colorado, that in eases between two States both of which recognize the doctrine of prior-appropriation as a matter of local law, the Court will apply the fundamental principles of the doctrine in the allocation of the waters of a river common to the, two States and will so apportion the dependable average annual flow between the States that the older established uses in both States will receive first protection. The doctrine sa announced leaves the Western States to a rivalry and a contest of speed for future development. The npper State has but. one alternative, that of using every means to retard development in the lower State until the uses within [ 21 ]