Laserfiche WebLink
mentioned, have found expression in many important water cases. This <br />challenge to the states' rights in water must be met on every occasion. <br />Since the law respecting interstate graters, except for the question <br />of federal claims, which I have discussed, seems to be well established by <br />a number of decisions of the United States Supreme Court, there would seem <br />to be every reason for adjusting interstate rights on interstate streams <br />by the compact method and by agreed plans of comprehensive basin wide <br />development, As a matter of fact, in my opinion, we have reached a time <br />when responsible state officials recognize the desirability wherever <br />possible of adjusting interstate water relations on an amicable basis. <br />Interstate litigation involves enormous expenditures of money, unconsciol <br />able delay and uncertainties as to outcome. Experience in Colorado has <br />been that a court decree on interstate water has always been the source <br />of further litigation. <br />With legal principles settled the problems on an interstate stream <br />are largely of an engineering nature. Under the process of litigation <br />great masses of conflicting engineering data are submitted to a master. <br />The voluminous record is then reviewed by one who is a layman so far as <br />engineering knowledge is concerned, in order-to make definite conclusions. <br />These conclusions are then resolved in the light of accepted principles <br />of law by the Court for the determination of the case. It is not surprisin; <br />therefore, that the final decree often leads to further litigation. We <br />must conclude that the interests of the states and their water users would,, <br />in most cases, be better protected by an ascertainment and review of all <br />of the pertinent facts within an interstate river basin under the direction <br />of a competent and impartial agency followed by compact negotiations, <br />.1L� . <br />