WSP03626

• File Number: 8200.300.40.A
• Description: Colorado River Compact
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 1/30/1922
• Author: Co. R Compact Comm.
• Title: Minutes of Colorado Compact Commission - Meeting #7
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

110

110

If the right to make them yield that flO1~ becomes of' such a nature,
that they cannot avoid it, that right, becomes an involuntary extra-.
territorial servitude upon their doma~n and axnountsto a taking
i
away of their property, insofar as it, reaches out and takes from
them that part of the natural

.

t

borders.

Such servitudes are

supplies which rise' within their
I
frowned! upon by international or
I
I
I
!

interstate Iml.

On the other hand, I realize that if the use in the Upper

States were said to be wasteful or .mnton, it might be said to

unjustly interfere with the lower States unless wasteful conditions
i
. .. . . . I
like.lise there obtained upon the Col~rado River. .

At this point I will mention th~ case of Kansas versusColo-
, ". . I

rado. In that case, the United States contended that within the

Hestern states the rule of prior appropriations regardless of
. I
State lines governs the division of viater under national control.
I
. ' . I
. The State of Colorado contended for the rule of absolute dominion
I
.. . I
and exclusive use of all .mter withi~ its domain. The state of

Kansas contended for the rule of con~inuous uninterrupted flow.

.

.

The decision denied the right of the lUnited States to interfere
. i

with the distribution of water supp~ within the States and denied
I
I
the rule of priority regardless of Siate lines. It denied the
i
extreme exercise of the right of absolute dominion by Colorado
i

.

and the claims of Kansas. 'vlhile it tas proven that cert.ainprior

irrigation'projects had beendestroytd in Kansas, the Court held

nevertheless that, in view of her ne$essities, Colorado had not

.

H.