WSP06585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o r:-~ ..... W c C0C ,sms t-.:.J 1 .Jan 51 " On tne Red Rlver. compact negotiations are contemplatea and work directed to this end is in progress by the individual States. The diversity or interests within the three hesins indicates the possibility or compacts dealing with problems other than ror conservation purposes. Interstate Compacts and U, S. SuPreme Court Decrees. As to the errect or decrees or the United States Suprllllle Court aking equitable division or waters or interstate streams, and their counter-part, the accomplishment or identical ends by interstate compacts, particular at- tention should be called to two or such decrees: In WashiDgton v. Oregon 297 U, S. 517 it was held that in determin- ing the equities or states in an interstate stream, so-called paper rights to use of waters decreed under state court decrees, but under which waters were not actua14 placed to benericial use, do not stalld in the way or an equitable division or the waters ot' such streams be- tween the af'!'ected states. However, it was not until the decision ot' the case ot' Hinderl1der v, IlL Plata River and Cherry Creek D Co, (304 U. S, 92) was the principle established that notwithstanding actual highest benet'icial uses ot' waters under state laws, illdereasible as against junior appropriators or waters within such state, such otherwise absolute vested rights must, it' neces- sary, give way to rights determined by compact or by suit involving the original jurisdiction ot' the United states Supreme Court, 11' the quantity ot' such vested rights exceeds the equitable portion or water allocated to that state by such compact or suit. Incidentally, it was determined by the deCision in the lA Plata River Case that the subject mtter or the suit was so exclusively a atter between states that by the mere ract that the interstate compact involved had consent ot' the Federal Govern- ment by Act or Congress, the suit did not present a Federal question to admit or appeal to the United States Supreme Court within the meaning or Section 237 (a) ot' the Judicial Code. However, the prinCipal :lmportance ot' the Ia Plata River decision is the rule briet'ly explained, which gives emphasis to the t'act that proj- ects t'or consumptive water uses on interstate streams cannot proceed on any assurance ot' !'inn water rights ttleret'or, unless or until the equita- ble interests therein or the several states riparian to such stream have been de!'ined. 4-5