|
11 "(b) That each State has full jurisdiction over the lands
<br />within its borders, including the beds of streams and other
<br />waters; Kansas vs. Colorado, 185 U.S. 208; 206 U.S.46 (1901 - 1907 ).
<br />2. "(c) That a State may determine .for itself whether the ripar-
<br />ian or appropriation doctrine shall control as regards the waters
<br />within its boundaries, and is free to change its system; Clark
<br />vs, Nash, 198 U.S,,361; Connecticut vs. Massachusetts, 282 U.S.
<br />660 (decided February 24, 1931); United States vs. Rio rArande
<br />Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690..702.; California- Oregon Power Co.
<br />vs... Beaver Portland Cement Co,, et al., 73 Fed. 2d 555.
<br />3, "(e) That no State may claim the exclusive right to the use of
<br />all the waters within its boundaries; that there must be an
<br />equitable division or apportionment of the benefits of an inter-
<br />state stream between the States affected; Kansas vs. Colorado,
<br />'185 U.S.208; 206 U.S. 46 (1901- 1907); Wyoming vs, Colorado, 259
<br />U,S. 419* -496; 260 U.S. 1 (1922); Connecticut vs. Massachusetts,.
<br />282 U.S. 660 (decided February 24, 1931); New Jersey vs. New
<br />pork et al., 283 U.S. 336 (1931); Missouri vs, Illinois, 200
<br />U.S. 496 (1906); Georgia vs, Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S.230 -237,
<br />4. "(f) That, as between two or more States which recognize exclu..
<br />sively the doctrine of appropriation and beneficial use, such
<br />doctrine may properly be made the basis in a determination of
<br />equitable apportionment of the common water supply, Wyoming vs.
<br />Colorado, 259 U.S. 419; 260 U.S. 1; 286 U.S. 494; 298 U.S, 573,
<br />(priority of appropriation, however, does not necessarily create
<br />superiority of right in the waters of an interstate stream; New
<br />Jersey vs. New York et al., 283 U.S, 336 (1931), see also Item (e);
<br />50 "(i) That-the appropriators and users of water in a State are
<br />represented by the State under which their claims arise, and are
<br />bound by the limitations which may be imposed upon that State,
<br />either by Supreme Court decree or by interstate compact; Nebraska
<br />vs. Wyoming, 295 U.S. 40; 79 L.Ed. 1289 at p. 1291; Wyoming vs,
<br />Colorado, 286 U.S. 494 (1932.); Hinderlider et al, vs. La Plata
<br />River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 58 S,Ct.Rept. 803 .(decided
<br />April 25, 1938).
<br />6. "(1) That tto appropriate water means to take and divert a
<br />specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accord.
<br />ance with the laws of the State where such water is found and, by
<br />so doing, to acquire under such laws a vested right to take and
<br />divert from the same source, and to use and consume the same
<br />quantity of water annually forever, subject only to the right of
<br />prior appropriatorst; Arizona vs. California et al., 283 U.S. 423
<br />(1931).
<br />7. "(q) That, in a given case, a division of the waters of an inter..
<br />state stream may not necessarily create a prior appropriation or
<br />superiority of right over another State in the enjoyment and use of
<br />1.1le waters of an interstate stream; New Jersey vs. New York et al,,
<br />283 U-S. 336 (1931).
<br />.,3..
<br />
|