Adjusting Water Rights Between States

Home Browse Search

Kansas vs.. Colorado (206 U.S„ 46)., where the question of conflict of powers between the federal and state jurisdictions arose:, the government relied upon the doctrine of sovereign and inherent power., It was there contended by the government that "no legislative powers belong to a state government other than those which affect solely the internal affairs of the state" and that consequently all powers which are national in their scope must be found vested in the Congress of the United States„ This position was rejected by the Supreme Court in the following language: "The argument of counsel ignores the principal factor in this article, to -wit., 'the people'. Its principal purpose was not the distribution of power between the United States and the states, but a reservation to the people of all powers not granted." In the case of United States v. Applachian Electric Power Co,_, 197 F. 2d 769, supra, decided in November 1939, involving an interstate river., the Court stated: "In this case, which so directly involves state and federal rights, it is important to steadily keep in mind our constitutional distri- bution of power between the state and federal governments." Again in the same case the Court held that the control of water in a non - navigable stream represented an exercise of the rights of the state, under the reserve powers of the constitution., to control its internal affairs, The Court further said: "To prohibit the use of the river for a dam or other purpose lawful under state laws, irrespective of navigation, would be taking pro. perty without compensation." The national interest and a coordinate plan of development are not contrary to the recognition of statest rights in the water, but the idea of centralized control by the federal government of water of nori•navigable streams is abhorrent to those interested in the utilization of the water resources of the west. The contentions of the federal government, above -13-