WSP01831 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The treaty povrers of the states have been frequently and suooossfully invoked in the settlement of disputed boundaries, through interstate oompaots ratified and approved ~J Congress. While international oontroversies respeoting rivers have always been settled, between friendly natioas, a. matters of poliay, through treaties, this ~ method seems to have been entirely overlooked in interrtate river disputes between the states of the Union. While prinoiples of international lawJ are applicable to interstate rivers, the complainant states have preferred to attaok rather than to treat. The mere accidental and partial similarity of local Iia laws, solely eor purposes of intra-state admipistration of the use of the waters of the commonwealths, has been seized upon as the basis of a permanent rule betvreen the states with utter disregard of the fundamental right of each state to ohange its looal laws to suit the ohanging oonditions of its ~erritory and people aooording to future neoessities and in disregp.rd of the fundamental rule that the domain or stream of one stat.e oannot be 1,t,s burdened with foregin servitudes against ~~will and particularly where the servient state would be powerless to oontrol the servitude through exercise of it. power of eminent domain. Agenoies, of the Unit.ed states have disregarded the oonstituional rights of the states and have joined in the promulgation of dootrines whioh would ultimately divest the states of all administrative oontrol of their streams and leave the wllole matter in the perpetual keeping of ambitious federal a5encies. Colo,'ado has never brought an interstate "'"-ter suit and has always stood ready and willing to enter upon txK negotiations looking to friendly settlements of asserted ~njuries. But other states have made repeated ..xx attacks, throu;h interstate suits involving Colo~ado streams, without afford- ing an opportunity of friendly adjustment. Colorado's present and future J