|
8, "(r) That, where the Court has by decision equitably divided the
<br />waters of an interstate stream between two States, the apportionp-
<br />meat or quantum received by each State may be administered for the
<br />benefit of its appropriators, in accordance with its own laws,
<br />without regard to the interests of the other State, so long as the
<br />aggregate quantity so,allocated is not exceeded; Wyoming vs.
<br />Colorado, 286 U.S. 494 (1932):
<br />9. "(s) That the appropriators or water users under a Federal
<br />reclamation project obtain whatever rights they may have to the
<br />use of water from the States in which such projects are located,
<br />and the continued enjoyment of such right is subject to the laws
<br />of such State; Kansas vs, Colorado, 185 U.S. 208; 206 U.S. 46
<br />(1901 - 1907); Nebraska vs, Wyoming and Colorado, Impleaded Defend-
<br />ant, 295 U.S, 40 ( decided Apr, 1, 1935)
<br />10, "(t) That States have the unquestioned authority to agree upon
<br />the division and use of the waters of an interstate stream, even
<br />if such division and use may have the effect of disturbing or des-
<br />troying the rights.. of individual appropriators which had thereto-
<br />fore been recognized by the laws of either State; Hinderlider et
<br />al,, vs, La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 58 S,Ct,
<br />Rept, 803 (decided April 25, 1938),
<br />Particular reference should be made to the case of Hinderlider et al,
<br />vs, La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 58 S.Ct. Rept, 803
<br />(reported in 1938), where the doctrine was announced that states by
<br />compact may divide the waters of an interstate stream, even though rights
<br />under appropriations recognized by the state laws are thereby denied,.
<br />This case set at rest the fear in the minds of many familiar with the
<br />subject that compacts between states were not effective as against prior
<br />appropriations within a state, The Court in that case said.;
<br />"As Colorado possessed the right only to an equitable share of the
<br />water in the stream, the decree of January 12, 1898, in the Colo-
<br />rado water proceeding did not award to the ditch company any right
<br />greater than the equitable share,, Hence the apportionment made by
<br />the compact cannot have taken from the ditch company any vested
<br />right unless there was in the proceedings leading up to the compact
<br />or In its application some vitiating infirmity. No such infirmity
<br />or illegality has been shown,"
<br />A recent decision, decided in April 1940, the State of Wyoming,
<br />complainant vs, the State of Colorado,, defendant, (Advanced Opinions L,Ed,
<br />725)., should be noted here. The State of 11'yoming sought leave to file its
<br />-4-
<br />
|