|
<br />
<br />
<br />[Vol. '9: Pog"
<br />
<br />mntry, navigabl~ or
<br />:er~ with the United
<br />d States tak~s water
<br />;e property has b,tll
<br />~d to comp~nsation,
<br />Iter is not subj~ct to
<br />
<br />'ould thus app~ar to
<br />of the power in th,
<br />rs as slightly lat~. U
<br />.r thinks not. Water
<br />basin managem'n~
<br />lI'ge federal expendi.
<br />y come before Con.
<br />. so to settle int~rstal'
<br />lement development
<br />
<br />First, a congressional
<br />ct or Supreme Coun
<br />e place; a Court div>
<br />I. Such delays can Ix
<br />is likely to obtain 2l
<br />,dication. A congr"-
<br />gotiated by the state!'
<br />rather than through
<br />al apportionment d,.
<br />ne substantial residu,
<br />riousJ y objects to th,
<br />hed by the water f"
<br />oackground of ufgcnl
<br />mringent upon agm.
<br />,me binding through
<br />tion does not ch31l~
<br />
<br />,am apportionment is
<br />)reme Court division.
<br />not a judicial act, for
<br />
<br />,0). u.s 617
<br />. Y. C3lifornia, 37J. . .
<br />in City oj Frt'S1Jo Ih2t Fr:
<br />mformiry ~-ith state' la_
<br />Claims. I
<br />Ict CompaCt arC"cUmp 0.
<br />
<br />~,~,'.?'.~~..-\ ,.\ ..~._'-
<br />
<br />THE COLORADO RIVER
<br />
<br />49
<br />
<br />,....~."'" I "ii'1
<br />
<br />. rinciples to guide the decision. A team of econo-
<br />.0- rr no normaUve Pd' . h d
<br />...... a: . d 'at.. engineers after omg extensIve researc an
<br />It 1r<>1"t:lsts, an \\ ~ ,
<br />......... y. . tI fi ld could undoubtedly make a rational recommend a-
<br />I ",.J,n~ In Ie e , . ' ..
<br />...'111' .. . th water in such a way as to maXimIze economIc gams.
<br />b'Cl fo3C &fll<>C21 ~;g. t~ where the Supreme Court is arbiter among equal,
<br />..,~ on. <' e.... S}S . . . h b d t d th
<br />.-' . sroues economic maxImIzatiOn as not eon a op e as e
<br />_.....,..,,-rrns:n .' I d th h b
<br />... I'" stream adJ'udlcauons. nstea e norm as een some-
<br />~. '" . t'Cu,on m , d d th
<br />. llcJ M 'table apportionment,' a vague set of stan ar s at are
<br />Ik~ ':~ I ('(jua.ntifv The most recent expression of the rule by the Su-
<br />-=......'10' r to qu J' .
<br />rm' c...urt is in l'kbraska (I. Wyoming:
<br />r' . a.lIs for the: exercise of an informed judgment on a considera-
<br />".,......""'mcn' .' 'h 'd' .' I B h'
<br />, , r ct rs Priority ofoppropnauon IS t e gul mg pnnclp e. ut p YSI~
<br />trc C'! mJn\ ~ 0 . . I" f
<br />. 'I' " .....ndirions lhr consumptive use of water In th~ severa sectIons 0
<br />... ."" C .IN 'c ,... h f bl" h d h
<br />h h.,.".", and rale of return Rows, I e extent 0 esta IS ~ uses, t e
<br />,..".,,~.Ir-C..... .
<br />.. '"' " f IO.......ro'1' ",,-ata the pracucal effect of wasleful uses on downstream
<br />..~~."lln 0 I '''b- , d
<br />L" '- .""" 10 upsueam areas as compared to the benefiu to own stream
<br />"".'. II'lIt" ~m to-
<br />t l'm'""lion is imposed on the former-these are all relevant factors. They
<br />~'I. 1 .'. h f
<br />en l':11Ndr an iIImlr~ti\"c, not an cxhaustJ\:e catalo.gue. They l?dlCate t e ~ature 0
<br />thr poltlrm of .pportionmrnt and the delicate adJustnlrnt of Interests which must
<br />",_1<.-
<br />
<br />1,.i, 112nd2rd has left many Justices uneasy and therefore unwilling to
<br />..',...!"'2Ir thr conuo\'ersies. In the case just quoted three Justices out of
<br />."u ..,.>UIJ ha\'e dismissed the bill of complaint because the record, though
<br />o!.... in!: 2n o\'efappropriated river, failed to show "actual damage in the
<br />,,,.:. Dl . . . :any threat of substantial damage in the near future. . . ."'"
<br />11... J,,,""l continues by pointing out the embarrassment to the Court of
<br />'''''"I.!r >!re:am adjudications:
<br />
<br />1lv rrf"(nJt'n! now m3de will arise to plague: this court not only in the: pres~nt
<br />~t llUl in o1hC'rs. The futwe will demonstratr, in my judgment, how wrong it is
<br />...... dllt C'Oun 10 attempt 10 become a continuing umpire: or a standing Master to
<br />.t.nn, Ihr p..:utiC:I must go at intervals for leave to do what, in their soverdgn right,
<br />u.r,. .JM~IIJ he able 10 do without Jet or hindrance, provided only that they work
<br />.., lul.t.mi.2l damage 10 thrir neighbors. In such controversies the judicial power
<br />~lJ III(' farmly exercised upon proJXr occasion, but as firmly withheld unless the
<br />IlIna.nHtanCTS plainly demand the interv~ntion of the court. Such mutual accom-
<br />--.1.a!tnru for the future as N~braska and Wyoming d~sire should be arranged by
<br />...,.,...tr 'Qm~ct, not by litigation.
<br />
<br />Suc-h rontrovenics between States are not easily put to repos~. Even when judi-
<br />,....! m'Dfcnncnt of rights is required, the attempt finally to adjudicate them ohen
<br />""""' 1.llOf1ive. Our reports afford evidence of this fact. Kansas and Colorado came
<br />'-'f '-1(1:'.11 the instance of Kansas, in a dispute over the Bow of the Arkansas
<br />~'".. In 1 UK pres.enting, on the whole, less difficulty than the prc:.srnt one this
<br />
<br />.... 11\ U.s. ,~. 618 (19.5).
<br />-. U., 61, (diuentin, opWon).
<br />
|