Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:38:55.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colorado v. Kansas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2017

P. Lord Merriman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Supreme Court OP The United States [December 6, 1943]

Supreme Court will not intervene in equity between States of the United States unlesscase is of serious magnitude and fully proven.

Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 1944 , pp. 485 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The court overruled a demurrer to the bill and required Colorado to answer. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125.

2 See the cases in notes 3, 4 and 6 infra. In New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 347, the prayer of Pennsylvania for such an allocation was denied. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, is not an exception. As it happened, the doctrine of appropriation had always prevailed in each of the states there concerned and furnished the most appropriate and accurate measure of their respective rights of appropriation of the flow of the Laramie River. It was, therefore, possible in enforcing equitable apportionment, to limit the amount of water which Colorado might, without injury to Wyoming’s interests, divert to another water shed, to an amount not exceeding the unappropriated flow.

3 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 95, 96.

4 See Washington v. Oregon, 214 U. S. 205, 218; Minnesota v. Wisconsin, 252 U. S. 273, 283; New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 313. Compare the Colorado River Compact of Nov. 24, 1922, authorized by Act of August 19, 1921, 42 Stat. 171, and dismissed in Arizona v. California, 292 U. S. 341, 345; and compare Hinderlider v. La Plata R. & C. C. Ditch Co,, 304 U. S. 92.

5 Kansas v. Colorado, supra, 100.

6 Colorado v. Kansas, supra, 85, 101–102; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 669–670; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 523, 526.

7 Cases cited in Note 8.

8 Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 520–521; New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 309; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 365, 374; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 669; Alabama v. Arizona, 291 U. S. 286, 292; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517,522.

9 Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 526.

10 In computing average annual flows, flood waters are included in the reckoning. As later shown, such annual averages do not represent the quantities of water usable by diversion ditches for irrigation.

11 206 U. S. 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61.

12 Ibid., 95, 99, 102, 104.

l3 Campbell v. Grimes, 64 Pac. 62.

14 Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206.

15 Frizell v. Bindley, 144 Kan. 84. Cf. Smith v. Miller, 147 Kan. 40; 75 P. 2d 273.