|
<br />
<br />IN'l~ERSTA'rB CO)ll'AC'l'S RESPEC'rINO USI~ Ol~ WATERS OF IN~rE,USTATg
<br />ItlVNItS.
<br />While, as we have already observed, val'ious of the States
<br />have settled their controversies respecting boundaries, fisheries,
<br />ete" by interstate compact or by concurrent State legislation,
<br />having the same' effect, this method of settlement of pending 01'
<br />threatened controversies respecting the use and distribution of.
<br />the waters of interstate streams for irl'igation and other bene-
<br />ficial purposes, has not been availed of, The right of adjoining
<br />States to the use and benefit of the waters of the streams common
<br />to both States has been considered by the ,court in the case of
<br />Kausas v, OOlo,ado (185 U, S" 125; 206 U, S" 46), in which
<br />case it was held that the respective States _ were each entitled
<br />to an equitable :portion of the waters of the comnion river, the
<br />extent of the use in each State to be determined upon the facts
<br />and circumstanJes of each particular case,
<br />,
<br />In the above-mentioned case the right of the United States
<br />to the use of the waters of the western streams was also con-
<br />sidered and determined (pp, 87-93),
<br />An equitable apportionment or allocation of the use and
<br />distribution of the waters of western interstate streams may be
<br />best accomplished through the efforts of the States represented by
<br />commissioners fully acquainted with the facts and the sunound-
<br />ing conditions, as 'well as with the future possibilities of use of
<br />water from the streams,
<br />Pl'inciples bf inte1'11ational law are applicable to the use
<br />and distributiorj of waters of interstate streams, and as regards
<br />compacts between the States, "the, rule of 'decision is not to be col-
<br />lected from tlle {[ecisions of either State, but is one, ,if we may so
<br />speak, of an int,ernational character," (Marlett v, Silk, 11 Pet.,
<br />1,23,) .
<br />The rights of the nation in whose territory an international
<br />stream has its i-Ise ti) the use, and benefit of its waters for the
<br />development ofiits territory, irrespective of the effect upon the
<br />territory of a l~wer nation through which the stream passes on
<br />its wa.y to the :sea, were fully considered by Attorney General
<br />Judson HarmOl:I, with respect to the claims made by the Repub-
<br />lic of Mexico to damage by depletion of the waters of the Rio
<br />Grande, occasiolled by uses in the United. States, After exhaus-
<br />tive consideration of the various authorities upon the subject,
<br />he arrived at the conclusion that, while the United' States had
<br />the right to utilize the entire flow of the Rio Grande in the neces-
<br />sary reclamation of the lands near. the source of the stream, and
<br />while "precedel)ts of international law imposed no liability or
<br />obligation upon: the United States" to permit any of the water of
<br />the stream to flow to ]]1 Paso, nevertheless, he advised that the
<br />matter be treated as one of policy and settled by treaty with
<br />Mexico, (21 Op$, Atty. Gen" 274, 280-283,)
<br />
<br />[ 24 ]
<br />
|