Laserfiche WebLink
<br />without any quid pro quo, the lower basin would attain a prior right <br />which hbecomes an involuntary extraterritorial servitude upon their <br />(upper basin] domain and amounts to a taking away of their property <br />Such servitudes," he remarked, "are frowned upon by international or <br />interstate law."29 <br /> <br />The key to truly equitable apportionment was trust. Carpenter's <br />study of the Nile River situation convinced him that the contracting <br />parties needed to view the river as a single, interconnected entity <br />throughout which "the use, conservation and development of water must be <br />viewed as a public trust . administered in the interests of the <br />beneficiaries of the trust and with due regards to the rights of <br />generations unborn."3o These are not Carpenter's words, but his <br />notations on documents describing international river problems in <br />Germany, France, Switzerland and Egypt, reveal the similarity between <br />his plan for the Colorado River and the situation on international <br />rivers.J1 What Carpenter did say, repeatedly, was that equitable <br />apportionment could only be achieved through international or interstate <br />trust, what he :requently referred to as "comity" - the courteous <br />recognition accorded by one nation, or state, of the laws and <br />institutions of another nation (or state). If negotiating parties <br />entered too quickly into refinements, details or demands, such as trying <br />to det~rmine how many irrigable acres were available in a specific <br />state, trouble would ensue, litigation would break out and the courts <br />would assume unwelcome control. But if comity were established first, <br />negotiation could proceed with a genuine interest in understanding the <br />other fellow's point of view. ,2 <br />This ent.ire notion of equity or fairness was predicated on respect <br />for state sovereignty. Nothing raised Carpenter's dander more than the <br />suggestion that federal officials should resolve Colorado River issues. <br />Turning over river problems to the government was just plain Uun- <br />American," he said.)) Repeatedly citing such landmark cases as Gibbons <br />v. ~, Chisholm v. Georaia, and Mcculloch v. Marvland to show that <br />the United States was limited to the powers specifically surrendered to <br /> <br />13 <br />