WSPC01517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ t4 I" ~ ~I I DOBOS by the United States shall be upon the express oondition and with the express covenant that they shall be subject to the compact, the act in effect prevents Arizona and those claiming under it from acquiring such rights. This contention cannot prevail beoause it is based, not on any actual or threatened impairment of Arizona's rights, but upon assumed potential in- vasions. The act does not purport to affect any legal right of the state, or to limit in any way the exercise of its legal right to appropriate any of the unappropriated 9,000,000 acre-feet which may flow within or on its borders. On the contrary, section 18 (43 USCA Par. 617q) specifically declares that nothing therein "shall be construed as interfering with such rights as the States nOW have either to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies and enact suoh laws as they may deem necessary with respect to the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders, except as modified" by inter- state agreement. As Arizona has made no such agreement, the aot leaves its legal rights unimpaired. There is no allegation of definite physioal acts by which Wilbur is interfering, or will interfere, with the exercise by Arizona of its right to make further appropriations by means of diversions above the dam or with the enjoyment of water so appropriated. Nor any *specific allegation , *463 of physical acts impeding the exercise of its right to make future appropriations by means of diversions belovf the dam, or limiting the enjoyment of rights so acquired, unless it be by preventing an adequate quantity of water from flowing in the river at any necessary point of diversion. ,) " (9-12) When the bill was filed, the construction of the dam and reservoir had not been commenced. Years must elapse before the project is completed. If by operations at the dam any then perfected right of Arizona, or of those claiming under it, should hereafter be interfered with, appropriate remedies will be available. Compare Kansas v. COlorado, 206 U. s. 46, 117, 27 S. ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956. The bill alleges, that plans have been drawn and permits granted for the taking of additional water in Arizona pursuant to its laws. But Wilbur threatens no physical interference with these projects; and the act interposes no legal inhibitions on their execution. J *464 There is no oocasion for determining *now Arizona's rights to interstate or lecal waters which have not yet been, and which may never be, appropriated. New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U. S. 328, 338. 46 S. Ct. 122. 70 L. Ed. 289. This court cannot issue declaratory decrees. Compare Texas v. Interstate Commerce COmmission, 258 U. S. 158, 162, 42 S. Ct. 261, 66 L. Ed. 531; Liberty TIarehouse v. Grannis, 273 U. s. 70. 74, 47 S. ct. 282, 71 L. Ed. 541; Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 277 U. s. 274, 289, 290, 48 S. Ct. 507. 72 L. Ed. 880. Arizona has, of course, no constitutional right to use, in aid of appropriation, any land of the United States, and it cannot complain of the provision conditioning the use of such public land. Compare Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. s. 389. 403-405. 37 S. ct. 387, 61 L. Ed. 791. " As we hold that the grant of authority to construct the dam and reservoir is a valid exercise of oongressional pawer, that the Boulder Canyon Projeot Act ., -7- 'l~