WSPC05386 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

).u00389 By statute and court decrees the waters of all western streams are dedicated to the use of the public. Each state has its own laws concerning the right to use such public water supplies. The laws of the states, however, are not uniform. Because the streams of the West are largely interstate in character, and because several of the streams are international in character, water use prob- lems developed at an early date in the history of the West, between countries, between states, and among states. Water use problems between countries can be re- solved, or partially resolved, by international tribunals, by war, or by treaty. Uater use problems between or among states can be resolved by Supreme Court decisi~, or by compact. In such matters between states, the Supreme Court essentially is acting as an international tribunal to compose differences be~1een or among quasi- sovereign entities. An international tribunal acting \dth respect to differences between countries is the substitution for composing such differences by armed forces. Experience for more than a half century has demonstrated that the most satis~actory method of composing water use problems between states and between nations is by compact or treaty. This is because representatives of sovereign entities, with competent advisors, are discussing a common problem as equals but not as antagonists. The chances of reaching a logical and eqlutable agreement by this process are much greater than the chances of arriving at as logical and satisfactory solution by the consideration of the problems by tribunals composed of members far removed from the problem. Several Supreme Court decisions have been rendered vuth respect to Western water use problems. Seldom have such decisions been satisfactory. Certain Justices of the Supreme Court have recognized the weakness of supreme court, deci- sions as compared vdth compacts. Justice Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis in a paper on interstate adjustments, speaking of the problems on the Colorado River, stated: "Conflicts folloY/ed, with the conventional rEsort to courts. But litigation added confusion, not settlement. The judicial instrument is too static and too sporadic for ad- justing a social-economic issue continuously alive in an area embracing more than a half a dozen States. 'The situa- tion compelled accommodation through agreement for continuous control of these continuously competing interests." Justice Roberts in dissenting from the Court's opinion in the Nebraska' versus Wyoming case over the North Platte River stated, in part: "The future vdll demonstrate, in my judgment, how wrong it is for this court to attempt to become a continuing umpire or a standing Master to whom the parties must go at intervals for leave to do "hat, in their sovereign right, they should be able to do without let or hindrance, provided only that they work no substantia,l damage to their neighbors. In such controversies the judicial pO'fer should be firmly exercised upon proper occasion, but as firmly withheld unless the cir- Clli~stances plainly demand the intervention of the court. Such mutual accommodations for the future as Nebraska and Wyoming desire should be arranged by interstate compact, not by litigation." -2-