Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.'1 \'\f\l.04 <br />vw-... <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />The validity of a compact on water, particularly where its terms and <br /> <br />enforcement may conflict with water rights under State law, was upheld in 1937 <br /> <br />by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hinderlider et al v. <br /> <br />La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (J02 U. S. 646). In that case <br /> <br />the Court held that adjustment of controversial rights and the use of water may <br /> <br />be made by compact without a judicial or quasi.jUdicial determination of exist- <br /> <br />jng rights, as .lell as by suit in the Supreme Court, In commenting upon the <br /> <br />apportionment of water of the La Plata .(iver made by the compact between Colo- <br /> <br />rado and. New j..lexico, the Court held that such apportionment is binding upon the <br /> <br />citi~ens of eacCl State and upon all "ater claimants even where the State had <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />previously granted water rights, This holding was based upon the theory, ex- <br /> <br />pressed by the Court, that no claimant has any right greater than the equitable <br /> <br />share of the water of an interstate stream, to which the State is entitled. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court of the United States has frequently recommended that <br /> <br />interstate water controversies be adjusted by compact in order to avoid the <br /> <br />difficulties incident to litigation. Experience in litigation before the Supreme <br /> <br />Court of the United States in interst~te water disputes has demonstrated that <br /> <br />the judicial process often is not flexible enough to.accomplish desirable and <br /> <br />workable results. In some instances the decision of the United States Supreme <br /> <br />Court has proven to be unworkable for tlJe best, highest and most efficient use <br /> <br />of the water resource. It is important to note, too, that resort to an original <br /> <br />action in the Supreme Court of the United States can only be made to adjust an <br /> <br />existing controversy where one state is using interstate waters to the injury or <br /> <br />threatened injury of another state. The Court will not apply the judicial process <br /> <br />for the purpose of adjusting many problems which are inherent in a program of <br /> <br />basin-wide development, <br />