Laserfiche WebLink
<br />allocation, not management of allocations or the watershed that produces the water to <br /> <br />satisfy them. The Court applies "interstate federal common law,"I9 drawing n state, <br /> <br />federal, and international la"". and considering all relevant facts "to s1cure an <br /> <br />equitable apportionment without quibbling about formulas."2I In Kansas v. Oolorado <br /> <br />the first interstate river dispute to come before the Court, the controversy etween <br /> <br />Kansas and Colorado over the Arkansas River, it listed only a few relevant f: ctors.22 <br /> <br />Twenty years later, in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 484 (1922), the Co added <br /> <br />"reasonable use" as a criterion, stating that "the doctrine [of prior appropriation applied <br /> <br />in each state and used as the basis for the Court's decision] lays on each of these states a <br /> <br />duty to exercise her right [in the Laramie River] reasonably and in a manner ca culated <br /> <br />to conserve the common supply." An expansive list of equitable considerations w slater <br /> <br />set forth in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 618 (1945): <br /> <br />[I]n determining whether one State is "using, or threatening <br />to use, more than its equitable share of the benefits of a <br />stream, all the factors which create equities in favor of one <br />State or the other must be weighed as of the date when the <br />controversy is mooted."[citation omitted]That case did not <br />involve a controversy between two appropriation States. But <br /> <br />record to protect certain wildlife and their habitat, he afforded them broad partici atory <br />rights as amici curiae. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 98 (1907). <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 146-47 (1902). <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 343 (1931). <br />185 U.S. at 147 (emphasis added). <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />15 <br />