Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001388 <br /> <br />'\ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />1ng the use of waters from rivers such as the Colorado <br />has long bean established by law. This use may be fixed <br />and determined in two ways: first, by judicial equitable <br />apportionment, second, by contract between the states af- <br />fected., Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 51 L. Ed. 956, <br />'Z7 Supreme Court 655. decided in 1907. <br />The principle enunciat ed in the foregoing case <br />was again adcpted by the Supreme Court in the case of <br />Wyoming against Colorado, 259 U. s. 419, 66 L. Ed. 999. de- <br />cided in 1922 after a six year oontroversy. <br />Reoently the court had ocoasion to re-examine the <br />matter and re-affirm the dootrine annOlmced in the two <br />preceding cases in the case of Hinderlider v. La. Plata <br />River & Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 304 u. S. 92, 82 L. Ed. <br />1202, decided in 1938. <br />Therefore it is quite manifest that Arizona had <br />full knowledge of what the rule would be, many years prior <br />to the agitation resulting in the Colorado River Compact! <br />Applying the rule whioh now soems to be the set- <br />tled law of this 'country to our situation, while there has <br />been no adjudication by our Courts apportioning the flow <br />of the Colorado between Arizona and any of the other basin <br />states, we respectfully submit that the second apportion_ <br />ment mentioned in the Kansas v. Colorado case has been <br /> <br />,', <br /> <br />10. <br />