WSP07699 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

See also discussion of the same subject in Stearns v, Min- nesota (179 U, is" 223); Virginia v, Tennessee (148 U, S" 503, 5171528) ; Wharton v, Wise (153 U. 'S" 155), In other words; the States of the Union, by consent of Con- gress, have the same power to enter into compacts with each other as do independent nations, upon all matters not delegated to the FederallGovernment, INTTIlUNATIONAL R.rvERs. Controversies respecting international rivers have been set- tled by tl'eaty" CHeffter Droit Ind" Appendix VIII; Hall, Tn- ternational Law, see, 39.) While the right of the United States to the use and benefit of the entire flow of the Rio Grande River irrespective of any former uses made in Mexico was upheld by the opinion of the Attorney General in 1895 (21 Ops, Atty, Gen" 274, 282), the rights of the t\vo nations were settled by a "conveution provid- ing for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande. for irrigation purposes" made May 21, 1906. (Malloy, 'rr~aties, VoL I, p, 1202',:) That the United States has a perfect right to divert the waters of the ,Colorado River at any point above the interna- tional boundary with Mexico irrespective of the effect of such di- version upon the flow of the river in Mexico or along that part of its course which forms the boundary between the two nations was held by the Attorney General September 28, 1903, mept, to Atty. Gen, :of U, S., Colorado River iu California, p, 58; Opinion of Atty, Gen" Aug; 20, 1919.) The above 1 opinion is in harmony with the decision in the Rio Grande case, wherein it was held (quoting from syllabus) : "The fact that there is not enough water in the Rio Grande for the use of the inhabitants of both countI'ies for irrigation purposes does -not give Mexico the right to subject the United States to the bnrden of arresting its development and of de- nying to its inhabitants the use of a provision which natnre has snpplied entirely within its tcrritory, '1'he recognition of such a right is entirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain, I "The rule~, principles, and precedents of international law imposed no duty or obligation upon the United States of deny- ing to its inhabitants the use of the water of that J,\art of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States' although such use results in reducing the volume of water in the river below the point where it ceases to be eniirely within the United States," (21 Ops, Atty, Gen" 274,) [ 22 ]