Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/c110818/colorado-v-new-mexico
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 19:58:50
Document Index: 172701465

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 37', '§ 72', '§ 5', '§ 132']

Argued October 4, 1982. Decided December 13, 1982. ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER
*177 Richard A. Simms, Special Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico, argued the cause for defendants. With him on the briefs were Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General, and Jay F. Stein, Special Assistant Attorney General.
Robert F. Welborn, Special Assistant Attorney General of Colorado, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Attorney General, Mary J. Mullarkey, Solicitor General, and William A. Paddock and Dennis M. Montgomery, Assistant Attorneys General.[*]
The Vermejo River is a small, nonnavigable river that originates in the snow belt of the Rocky Mountains in southern Colorado and flows southeasterly into New Mexico for a distance of roughly 55 miles before it joins the Canadian River. The major portion of the river is located in New Mexico. The Colorado portion consists of three main tributaries that combine to form the Vermejo River proper approximately one mile below the Colorado-New Mexico border. At present there are no uses of the water of the Vermejo River in Colorado, and no use or diversion has ever been made in Colorado. In New Mexico, by contrast, farmers and industrial users have diverted water from the Vermejo for many years. In 1941 a New Mexico state court issued a decree apportioning the water of the Vermejo River among the various New Mexico users.[1]
In 1975, a Colorado corporation, Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corp. (C. F. & I.), obtained in Colorado state court a conditional right to divert 75 cubic feet per second from the headwaters of the Vermejo River.[2] C. F. & I. proposed a transmountain diversion of the water to a tributary of the Purgatoire River in Colorado to be used for industrial development and other purposes. Upon learning of this decree, the four principal New Mexico users  Phelps Dodge Corp. (Phelps Dodge), Kaiser Steel Corp. (Kaiser Steel), Vermejo Park Corp. (Vermejo Park), and the Vermejo Conservancy District (Conservancy District)  filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking to enjoin any diversion by C. F. & I. that would violate their senior rights. On January 16, 1978, the District Court enjoined C. F. & I. from diverting any water from the Vermejo River in derogation of the senior water rights of New Mexico *179 users.[3] The court found that under the doctrine of prior appropriation, which both New Mexico and Colorado recognize,[4] the New Mexico users were entitled to have their needs fully satisfied because their appropriation was prior in time. C. F. & I. filed a notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stayed its proceedings during the pendency of this case before us.
In June 1978 Colorado moved for leave to file an original complaint in this Court. New Mexico opposed the motion. On April 16, 1979, we granted Colorado's motion and appointed *180 the Honorable Ewing T. Kerr, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, as Special Master in this case. 441 U.S. 902. After a lengthy trial involving an extensive presentation of evidence, the Special Master submitted a report to the Court on January 9, 1982. The report was accepted for filing on February 22, 1982. 455 U.S. 932.
The Special Master found that most of the water of the Vermejo River is consumed by the New Mexico users and that very little, if any, reaches the confluence with the Canadian River. He thus recognized that strict application of the rule of priority would not permit Colorado any diversion since the entire available supply is needed to satisfy the demands of appropriators in New Mexico with senior rights. Nevertheless, applying the principle of equitable apportionment established in our prior cases, he recommended permitting Colorado a transmountain diversion of 4,000 acre-feet[5] of water per year from the headwaters of the Vermejo River. He stated:
Explaining his conclusion, the Special Master noted that any injury to New Mexico would be restricted to the Conservancy District, the user in New Mexico furthest downstream, since there was sufficient water in the Vermejo River for the three other principal New Mexico water users, Vermejo *181 Park, Kaiser Steel, and Phelps Dodge.[6] He further found that the "Vermejo Conservancy District has never been an economically feasible operation." Ibid.
The Special Master's recommendation appears to rest on two alternative grounds: first, that New Mexico could compensate for some or all the Colorado diversion through reasonable water conservation measures;[7] and second, that the injury, if any, to New Mexico would be outweighed by the benefit to Colorado from the diversion.[8] In its various exceptions to his report, New Mexico challenges the Special Master's interpretation of the law of equitable apportionment. New Mexico maintains that the rule of priority should be strictly applied in this case to preclude Colorado *182 from diverting any water from the Vermejo River. New Mexico also challenges the factual bases of the Special Master's conclusions that the recommended diversion would not materially affect New Mexico users and that any harm to New Mexico would be offset by the benefits to Colorado.[9]
We conclude that the criteria relied upon by the Special Master comport with the doctrine of equitable apportionment as it has evolved in our prior cases. We thus reject New *183 Mexico's contention that the Special Master was required to focus exclusively on the rule of priority. However, the report of the Special Master does not contain sufficient factual findings to enable us to assess the correctness of the Special Master's application of the principle of equitable apportionment to the facts of this case. We therefore remand with instructions to the Special Master to make further findings of fact.
The laws of the contending States concerning intrastate water disputes are an important consideration governing equitable apportionment. When, as in this case, both States recognize the doctrine of prior appropriation, priority becomes *184 the "guiding principle" in an allocation between competing States. Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra, at 618. But state law is not controlling. Rather, the just apportionment of interstate waters is a question of federal law that depends "upon a consideration of the pertinent laws of the contending States and all other relevant facts." Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 670-671 (emphasis added).
*185 We have invoked equitable apportionment not only to require the reasonably efficient use of water, but also to impose on States an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to conserve and augment the water supply of an interstate stream. In Wyoming v. Colorado, Wyoming brought suit to prevent a proposed diversion by Colorado from the Laramie River. This Court calculated the dependable supply available to both States, subtracted the senior Wyoming uses, and permitted Colorado to divert an amount not exceeding the balance.[10] In calculating the dependable supply we placed on each State the duty to employ "financially and physically feasible" measures "adapted to conserving and equalizing the natural flow." 259 U. S., at 484 (emphasis added). Adopting a position similar to New Mexico's in this case, Wyoming objected to a requirement that it employ conservation measures to facilitate Colorado's proposed uses. The answer we gave is especially relevant to this case:
"The question here is not what one State should do for the other, but how each should exercise her relative rights in the waters of this interstate stream. . . . Both States recognize that conservation within practicable limits is essential in order that needless waste may be prevented and the largest feasible use may be secured. This comports with the all-pervading spirit of the doctrine *186 of appropriation and takes appropriate heed of the natural necessities out of which it arose. We think that doctrine lays on each of these States a duty to exercise her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply." Ibid.[11]
In addition, we have held that in an equitable apportionment of interstate waters it is proper to weigh the harms and benefits to competing States. In Kansas v. Colorado, where we first announced the doctrine of equitable apportionment, we found that users in Kansas were injured by Colorado's upstream diversions from the Arkansas River. 206 U. S., at 113-114, 117. Yet we declined to grant any relief to Kansas on the ground that the great benefit to Colorado outweighed the detriment to Kansas. Id., at 100-101, 113-114, 117. Similarly, in Nebraska v. Wyoming, we held that water rights in Wyoming and Nebraska, which under state law were senior, had to yield to the "countervailing equities" of an established economy in Colorado even though it was based on junior appropriations. 325 U. S., at 622. We noted that the rule of priority should not be strictly applied where it "would work more hardship" on the junior user "than it would bestow benefits" on the senior user. Id., at 619. See also Washington v. Oregon, supra, at 522. The same principle is applicable in balancing the benefits of a diversion for proposed uses against the possible harms to existing *187 uses. See, e. g., Wyoming v. Colorado, supra (placing upon Wyoming, the State with senior water rights, a duty to conserve water in order to facilitate a diversion for a proposed use in Colorado); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931).[12]
We recognize that the equities supporting the protection of existing economies will usually be compelling. The harm that may result from disrupting established uses is typically certain and immediate, whereas the potential benefits from a proposed diversion may be speculative and remote. Under some circumstances, however, the countervailing equities supporting a diversion for future use in one State may justify the detriment to existing users in another State. This may be the case, for example, where the State seeking a diversion demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of the diversion substantially outweigh the harm that might result.[13] In the determination of whether the State *188 proposing the diversion has carried this burden, an important consideration is whether the existing users could offset the diversion by reasonable conservation measures to prevent waste. This approach comports with our emphasis on flexibility in equitable apportionment and also accords sufficient protection to existing uses.
*189 III
*190 (3) the extent to which reasonable conservation measures in both States might eliminate waste and inefficiency in the use of water from the Vermejo River;
(5) the injury, if any, that New Mexico would likely suffer as a result of any such diversion, taking into account the extent to which reasonable conservation measures could offset the diversion.[14]
This case arises from an understandably intense competition between two States over rights to a small, nonavigable, interstate river. Because on the record before it this *191 Court cannot make an appropriate apportionment of the water, the Court remands the case to the Special Master for further factual findings.
Undoubtedly, there is evidence in the record indicating that large losses of water occur through seepage and evaporation in transporting waters of the Vermejo through open *192 ditches for irrigation and stock watering. Tr. 1315. It is a leap, however, from observing that large losses occur to concluding, as Colorado would have the Court do, that the practices of the Conservancy District are wasteful or unreasonable. As the Court observes, ante, at 185, the extent of the duty to conserve that may be placed upon the user is limited to measures that are "financially and physically feasible," Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 484 (1922), and "within practicable limits." Ibid.[1] Nevertheless, in concluding that the Conservancy District's distribution system is "inefficient," the Special Master made no factual finding that improved economy in that system is within the practicable means available to the District.[2]
Colorado would have the Court assess the Conservancy District's "waste" and "inefficiency" by a new yardstick  i. e., not by comparing the economic gains to the District with the costs of achieving greater efficiency, but by comparing the "inefficiency" of New Mexico's uses with the relative benefits to Colorado of a new use. The Special Master has succumbed to this suggestion. His recommendation that *193 Colorado be permitted a diversion embodies the judgment that, because Colorado can, in some unidentified sense, make "better" use of the waters of the Vermejo, New Mexico may be forced to change its present uses.
In equitable apportionment litigation between two prior appropriation States concerning the waters of a fully appropriated river, this Court has never undertaken that balancing task outside the concrete context of either two established economies in the competing States dependent upon the waters to be apportioned[3] or of a proposed diversion in one State to satisfy a demonstrable need for a potable supply of drinking water.[4] In the former context, the Court may assess the relative benefit and detriment by reference to the *194 actual fruits of use of the waters in the respective States.[5] In the latter context, the compelling nature of the proposed use reduces the speculation that might otherwise attend assessment of the benefits of a proposed diversion. Where, as here, however, no existing economy in Colorado depends on *195 the waters of the Vermejo and the actual uses in New Mexico rank in equal importance with the proposed uses in Colorado,[6] the difficulty of arriving at the proper balance is especially great.
The Court's remand reflects its judgment that the paucity of the factual findings before us furnishes an inadequate basis *196 upon which to make "the delicate adjustment of interests" at stake, Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 618 (1945). I concur in that disposition insofar as the Special Master's findings and conclusions do not provide a basis for determining whether Colorado has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the Conservancy District has engaged in unreasonably wasteful practices.
[*] Burton M. Apker filed a brief for Kaiser Steel Corp. et al. as amici curiae.
[1] Phelps Dodge Corp. v. W. S. Land and Cattle Co., No. 7201 (Dist. Ct. Colfax Cty., Nov. 13, 1941).
[2] In re Application for Water Rights of C. F. & I. Corp., No. W-3961 (Dist. Ct., W. Div. No. 2, June 20, 1975).
[3] Kaiser Steel Corp. v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., Civ. No. 76-244 (NM 1978). The injunction was not based on a determination of the right of the two States under the law of equitable apportionment, since neither Colorado nor New Mexico was a party to the action.
[4] N. M. Const., Art. XVI, § 2; Colo. Const., Art. XVI, §§ 5, 6. The administration of water rights in each State is governed by statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-101 et seq. (1973 and Supp. 1982); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 72-1-1 et seq. (1978 and Supp. 1982).
Appropriative rights do not depend on land ownership and are acquired and maintained by actual use. Riparian rights, by contrast, originate from land ownership and remain vested even if unexercised. Appropriative rights are fixed in quantity; riparian rights are variable depending on streamflow and subject to the reasonable uses of others. See generally 1 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights (1967); W. Hutchins, Selected Problems in the Law of Water Rights in the West (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. No. 418, 1942); 1 W. Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. No. 1206, 1971).
[5] An acre-foot is a volumetric measurement which means the amount of water required to cover one acre of ground one foot deep. One acre-foot equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,900 gallons of water.
[6] The Conservancy District is the largest user of water from the Vermejo River in New Mexico. It consists of over 60 farms irrigated by an extensive system of canals and reservoirs. The United States Maxwell Wildlife Refuge is also located within the District. In the early 1950's the District was part of a large reclamation project funded by the Federal Government.
[7] This is a fair reading of the Special Master's conclusion that New Mexico users would not be "materially affected" by the recommended diversion. While the report does not expressly state that Colorado's diversion might be offset by reasonable conservation efforts, it does refer specifically to the waste and inefficiency of the Conservancy District's system of water canals. Report of Special Master 8, 23. In addition, in its second exception to the report New Mexico acknowledges that the Special Master based his conclusion that New Mexico users would not be materially affected on certain findings concerning waste and inefficiency within the Conservancy District.
[8] New Mexico contends that the Special Master relied on a third ground, namely, that the mere fact that the Vermejo River originates in Colorado automatically entitles Colorado to a share of the water of the Vermejo River. See id., at 8. To the extent that the Special Master applied such a per se rule of apportionment, we reject it as inconsistent with our emphasis on flexibility in equitable apportionment.
[9] New Mexico also contends that Colorado is improperly suing directly and solely for the benefit of a private individual  C. F. & I.  in violation of the Eleventh Amendment, and that Colorado's suit is barred by laches. We find no merit to these claims.
Because the State of Colorado has a substantial interest in the outcome of this suit, New Mexico may not invoke its Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal actions by citizens of another State. The portion of the Vermejo River in Colorado is owned by the State in trust for its citizens. Colo. Const., Art. XVI, § 5. While C. F. & I. will most likely be the primary user of any water diverted from the Vermejo River, other Colorado citizens may jointly use the water or purchase water rights in the future. In any event, Colorado surely has a sovereign interest in the beneficial effects of a diversion on the general prosperity of the State. Faced with a similar set of circumstances in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 99 (1907), we concluded that "[t]he controversy rises . . . above a mere question of local private right and involves a matter of state interest and must be considered from that standpoint."
[10] This description is only roughly accurate, since we did not rigidly follow this procedure in apportioning the Laramie River, but instead departed from a strict application of the rule of priority in numerous respects. For instance, our decree in Wyoming v. Colorado granted Colorado an unqualified right to divert 22,500 acre-feet, even though there were Wyoming appropriations senior to the Colorado appropriations underlying the 22,500 acre-feet grant. 259 U. S., at 489-490. In addition, we granted to Colorado priority to divert a total of 37,750 acre-feet, even though some of the underlying appropriations were junior to a number of Wyoming appropriations. Id., at 495-496. The effect was to guarantee water to junior appropriators in Colorado to the potential detriment of senior appropriators downstream in Wyoming. See 2 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights § 132.4 (1967).
[11] We thus required Wyoming to enhance and equalize the water supply through "practicable storage and conservation" measures, such as the use of storage facilities similar to those already in use in Wyoming. 259 U. S., at 485.
[12] In Connecticut v. Massachusetts we declined to enjoin Massachusetts' proposed diversion for future uses. We took into account the impending "serious water shortage" in the Boston area and the absence of "real or substantial injury or damage" to Connecticut. 282 U. S., at 664, 672. Although Connecticut v. Massachusetts, as well as New Jersey v. New York, involved States that follow the riparian rather than the prior appropriation doctrine, see n. 4, supra, our allocation of water for future uses rested on the federal common law of equitable apportionment, which, as we made clear, "is not governed by the same rules of [state] law that are applied . . . for the solution of similar questions of private right." Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S., at 670; see also New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S., at 342-343. Nothing in those two cases suggested that the apportionment of water for future uses in any way depended on the adherence of both States to the riparian doctrine.
[13] Our cases establish that a State seeking to prevent or enjoin a diversion by another State bears the burden of proving that the diversion will cause it "real or substantial injury or damage." Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 672. See also New Jersey v. New York, supra, at 344-345; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S., at 117; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S., at 393-394. This rule applies even if the State seeking to prevent or enjoin a diversion is the nominal defendant in a lawsuit. In Colorado v. Kansas, for instance, Colorado sued Kansas seeking to enjoin further lawsuits by Kansas water users against Colorado users. Although Kansas was the defendant, we granted Colorado an injunction based on Kansas' failure to sustain the burden of showing that the Colorado diversions had "worked a serious detriment to the substantial interests of Kansas." Id., at 400; see also id., at 389-390.
The burden has therefore shifted to Colorado to establish that a diversion should nevertheless be permitted under the principle of equitable apportionment. Thus, with respect to whether reasonable conservation measures by New Mexico will offset the loss of water due to Colorado's diversion, or whether the benefit to Colorado from the diversion will substantially outweigh the possible harm to New Mexico, Colorado will bear the burden of proof. It must show, in effect, that without such a diversion New Mexico would be using "more than its equitable share of the benefits of a stream." Id., at 394. Moreover, Colorado must establish not only that its claim is of a "serious magnitude," but also that its position is supported by "clear and convincing evidence." Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 669. See also Colorado v. Kansas, supra, at 393; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S., at 522.
[14] The Special Master may make any other factual findings that he considers relevant. Additional hearings may be held, although they may be unnecessary in light of the extensive evidence already presented at trial. Upon remand, the Special Master is free to reaffirm his original recommendation or make a different recommendation on the basis of the evidence and applicable principles of equitable apportionment.
[1] It is significant to note that in Wyoming v. Colorado, upon which the Court relies for the proposition that an affirmative duty to conserve may be imposed on the States, ante, at 185, the Wyoming appropriators already had storage facilities in place for equalizing the river's natural flow. In answering Wyoming's objection that it should not be burdened with conservation measures in order to permit a diversion by Colorado, the Court observed:
"We think [the] doctrine [of appropriation] lays on each of these States a duty to exercise her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply. Notwithstanding her present contention, Wyoming has in fact proceeded on this line, for, as the proof shows, her appropriators, with her sanction, have provided and have in service reservoir facilities which are adapted for the purpose and reasonably sufficient to meet its requirements." 259 U. S., at 484-485 (emphasis added).
[2] Evidence in the record indicates that the Conservancy District has employed an engineering firm to investigate the feasibility of constructing an enclosed system to deliver stock water to the District's landowners. Tr. 1318.
[3] See Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945); Washington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517 (1936); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907).
[4] See New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931). It is also significant to note that these disputes occurred between two riparian States.
Wyoming v. Colorado, supra, does not represent an exception to the pattern stated in the text. The Court did not engage in any wholesale balancing of the relative harms and benefits to the two States from the proposed diversion. Rather, the Court imposed a very limited duty on Wyoming to make use of the storage facilities its appropriators already had in place, see n. 1, supra, for the purpose of calculating the dependable supply of water available to Wyoming. 259 U. S., at 484. The Court was thereby able to determine that the waters of the Laramie River were not fully appropriated and that a share of the waters was available for Colorado's proposed use.
[5] For example, in Kansas v. Colorado, supra, Kansas sought to restrain Colorado from diverting waters of the Arkansas River for the irrigation of lands in Colorado. Colorado had diverted waters from the river since the 1880's. As a result of irrigation, the population of the irrigated areas, the number of acres cultivated, and the value of farm products produced in these areas escalated dramatically. 206 U. S., at 108-109. The Court compared this demonstrated salutary effect of the irrigation on the economy of Colorado with the corresponding population changes and changes in acreage and production of corn and wheat in the affected Kansas counties for the same period. Id., at 110-113. Using these concrete data, the Court was able to discern some minimal injury to Kansas as a result of the diminution of the flow of the Arkansas River. Id., at 113-114. Viewing the overall impact of the available water on the two economies, however, the Court concluded:
Similarly, in Washington v. Oregon, supra, the Court was equipped to assess the balance of harm and benefit to the economies from the diversion at issue. Washington sought an injunction against Oregon's diversion of waters of the Walla Walla River for irrigation in Oregon. On the one hand, Oregon had an existing agricultural economy dependent upon irrigation from the Walla Walla. On the other hand, the evidence revealed that there would be absolutely no benefit to Washington in prohibiting Oregon's diversion during periods of water shortage; the nature of the river channel was such that even if the water was not diverted by Oregon users, it would be absorbed by the gravel beneath the channel and never reach Washington users. 297 U. S., at 522-523. The Court therefore concluded that "[t]o limit the long established use in Oregon would materially injure Oregon users without a compensating benefit to Washington users." Id., at 523.
[6] According to Colorado, the diverted water would be used "in industrial operations at coal mines, agriculture, timbering, power generation, domestic needs and other industrial operations . . . ." Reply Brief for Colorado 8.
Citation Numbers： 459 U.S. 176, 103 S. Ct. 539, 74 L. Ed. 2d 348, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 1
Virginia v. Maryland , 540 U.S. 56 ( 2003 )
Colville Confederated Tribes v. Boyd Walton, Jr., Et Ux , 752 F.2d 397 ( 1985 )
Monoflo Intern., Inc. v. Sahm , 726 F. Supp. 121 ( 1989 )
State of NM Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Aamodt , 618 F. Supp. 993 ( 1985 )
Ouellette v. International Paper Co. , 666 F. Supp. 58 ( 1987 )
Ernst v. Rising ( 2005 )
Bentley v. Hall Ranches, LLC C/W 64773/66932 ( 2016 )