WSPC07667 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CtiZH9 "Eaoh State i8 subjeot only to the limitations pr8soribed by the Constitu- tion and within 'its awn territory is otherwise supreme. Its Internal affairs are matters of its own disoretion." (Id., 454.) "The powers affeoting the internal affairs of the States not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respeotively, and all powers of a national oharaoter whioh are not delegated to the National Government by the Constitution are reserved to the people of the United States." (Justioe Brewer in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. So; 46, 90.) oj In the oase of Kansas v. ColoradO, last above oited, the United States inter- vened, in effeot olaiming national oontrol of the water8 of Western streams to be administered under the dootrine of prior appropriation. In answer to the primary question of national oontrol, regardless of the right8 of the states, inter sese, Justioe Brewer, after observing that the United States had an interest in the publio lands within the Western States and might legislate for their reola- mation, subjeot to State laws, thus disposed of the olaim of national oontrol of Western interstate streamsl ~ "Turning to the enumeration of the powers granted to Congress by the eighth seotion of the first artiole of the Constitution, it is enough to say that no one of them by any implioation refers to the reolamation of arid land. * * * No independent and W1lIlentioned power passes to the National Government or oe.n r ight- fully be sxeroised by the Congress. * * * But it is useless to pursue the in- quiry further in this direotion. It is enough for the purpose of this oase that eaoh State has full jurisdiotion over the lands within its borders, inoluding the beds of streams and other waters. (Citing oases)., * * * It may determine for itself whether the oammon law rule in respeot to riparian rights or that doctrine whioh obtains in the arid regions of the West of the appropriation of waters for the purposes of irrigation shall oontrol. Congress oall not enforoe either rule upon any State. * * * One oardinal rule, underlying all the relations of the States to eaoh other, is that of the equality of right. Eaoh State stand8 on the same level with all the rest. It oan impose its own legi81ation on no one of the other8, and is bound to yield its own views to none." (Kansas v. ColoradO, 206 U. S" 46, 87-97.) ~ , . In oonoluding the above deoision, the Supreme Court dismissed the oase with- out prejudioe to the right of Kansas to institute new prooeedings, "whenever it 8hall appear that through a material inorease in the depletion of the waters of the Arkansas by Colorado * * * the substantial interests of Kansas are being in- jured to the extent of destroying the equitable apportionment of the benefits be- tween the two States resulting from the flow of the river." (206 U. S., 46, 117.) (Notel Sinoe the foregoing memorandum was written the U. S. Supreme Court deoided, in Wyoming v. Colorado, that in oases between two States both of whioh reoognize the dootrine of prior appropriation as a matter of looal law, the Court will apply the fundamental prinoiples of the dootrine in the allooation of the waters of a river oommon to the two States and will so apportion the dependable average annual flow between the State8 that the older established uses in both States will reoeive first proteotion. The dootrine so announoed leaves the Western States to a rivalry and a oontest of speed for future development. The -9-