Legal Document

459 U.S. 176 103 Supreme Court Reporter 539 74 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 348 State of COLORADO, Plaintiffv.State NEW MEXICO and Paul G. Bardacke, Attorney General New Mexico. Number 80, Orig. Argued Oct. 4, 1982. Decided Dec. 13, Syllabus The Vermejo River—which originates in southern Colorado but is located primarily Mexico—is at present fully appropriated by users seeks an equitable apportionment the river's water order to divert for proposed uses. Special Master, after a trial, recommended his report that be permitted diversion 4,000 acre-feet per year. Master recognized strict application rule prior appropriation would not permit any diversion. In applying principle apportionment, however, he did focus exclusively on priority, apparently rested recommendation alternative grounds Mexico could compensate some or all through reasonable conservation measures, injury, if any, outweighed benefit from filed exceptions Master's report. Held: 1. flexible applies State's claim future uses, criteria relied upon comport with this Court's cases. Pp. 183-188. (a) When, as case, both recognize doctrine appropriation, priority becomes guiding principle, sole criterion, determining apportionment. 183-184. (b) While equities supporting protection established, senior uses are substantial, it also appropriate consider additional factors relevant just such measures available here balance harms benefits might result sought Colorado. 184-187. (c) A seeking must demonstrate clear convincing evidence substantially outweigh harm result. 187-188. 2. However, does contain sufficient factual findings enable assess correctness facts case. Accordingly, remands findings, including specific relating reliance availability weighing 547-549. Remanded further findings. Richard Atlantic Simms, Santa Fe, N.M., defendants. Robert Federal KF105 F3 Welborn, Denver, Colo., plaintiff. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case concerns proper between interstate river. River Invoking original jurisdiction under Article 3, § 2 Constitution, brought action River. appointed before us Mexico's * small, nonnavigable river snow-belt Rocky Mountains flows southeasterly into distance roughly 55 miles joins Canadian major portion consists three main tributaries combine form approximately one mile below Colorado-New border. At there no Colorado, use has ever been made Mexico, contrast, farmers industrial have diverted many years. 1941 state court issued decree apportioning among various users.1 3 1975, corporation, Fuel Iron Steel Corporation ("C.F. & I."), obtained conditional right 75 cubic feet second headwaters River.2 C.F. I. transmountain tributary Purgatoire used development other purposes. Upon learning decree, four principal users—Phelps Dodge ("Phelps Dodge"), Kaiser ("Kaiser Steel"), Park ("Vermejo Park"), Conservancy District ("Conservancy District")—filed suit enjoin violate their rights. On January 16, 1978, enjoined diverting derogation rights users.3 found which recognize,4 were entitled needs satisfied because was time. notice appeal, Appeals Tenth Circuit stayed its proceedings during pendency us. 4 June 1978 moved leave file complaint opposed motion. April 1979, we granted Colorado's motion Honorable Ewing T. Kerr, Senior Judge Wyoming, After lengthy trial involving extensive presentation evidence, submitted 9, accepted filing February 22, 5 most consumed very little, reaches confluence He thus since entire supply needed satisfy demands appropriators Nevertheless, established our cases, permitting acre-feet5 year stated: 6 "It materially affect appropriations downstream. thorough examination existing economies convinces injury will more than offset Colorado." Report Page 23. 7 Explaining conclusion, noted restricted District, user furthest downstream, users. Park, Steel, Phelps Dodge.6 "Vermejo never economically feasible operation." Ibid. 8 appears rest two grounds: first, measures;7 second, diversion.8 report, challenges interpretation law maintains should strictly applied preclude bases conclusions Colorado.9 9 We conclude evolved reject contention required priority. therefore remand instructions make fact. II 10 Equitable federal common governs disputes states concerning stream. Kansas versus 206 46, 98, 27 655, 667-668, 51 L.Ed. 956 (1907); Connecticut Massachusetts, 282 660, 670-671, 286, 289-290, 602 (1931). It calls "the exercise informed judgment consideration factors" secure "just equitable" allocation. Nebraska 325 589, 618, 65 1332, 1350-1351, 89 1815 (1945). stressed arriving delicate adjustment interests made," ibid., factors, including: 11 "physical climatic conditions, consumptive several sections river, character rate return flows, extent storage water, practical effect wasteful downstream areas, [and] damage upstream areas compared limitation imposed former." 1351, 12 Our aim always "without quibbling over formulas." Jersey York, 283 336, 343, 478, 479, 1104 13 laws contending intrastate important governing "guiding principle" allocation competing states. U.S., S.Ct., 1350-1351. But controlling. Rather, waters question depends "upon pertinent facts." 289 (emphasis added). 14 reaching considered efficiency current contends improper these factors. when adhering doctrine, departed only protect economy built junior appropriations. Since dependent River, disagree inflexible 15 cases clearly establish those "reasonably acquired applied." Wyoming 259 419, 484, 42 552, 564, 66 999 (1922). Especially Western where scarce, "[t]here waste . 'treasure' Only diligence good faith keep privilege alive." Washington Oregon, 297 517, 527, 56 540, 544-545, 80 837 (1936). Thus, inefficient protected. See ibid.; supra, Similarly, concededly deemed forfeited diminished exercised asserted diligence. 527-528, 544-545 (1936); Kansas, 320 383, 394, 64 176, 181, 88 116 (1943). 16 invoked require reasonably efficient impose affirmative duty take steps conserve augment prevent Laramie calculated dependable states, subtracted amount exceeding balance.10 calculating placed each employ "financially physically feasible" "adapted conserving equalizing natural flow." 564 Adopting position similar objected requirement facilitate answer gave especially case: 17 "The what do other, how her relative Both within practicable limits essential needless may prevented largest secured. comports allpervading spirit takes heed necessities out arose. think lays manner supply." Ibid.11 18 entirely thereby minimize whether undertaken required. 19 addition, held weigh first announced injured diversions Arkansas 113-114, 117, 674, 675-676. Yet declined grant relief ground great detriment Kansas. Id., 100-101, 668-669, Nebraska, senior, had yield "countervailing equities" even though based 622, 1352. "would work hardship" "than bestow benefits" user. 619, 1351. 522, 542. same applicable balancing against possible See, e.g., supra (placing rights, Colorado); supra; supra.12 20 usually compelling. disrupting typically certain immediate, whereas potential speculative remote. Under circumstances, countervailing justify another state. example, demonstrates result.13 determination proposing carried burden, waste. approach emphasis flexibility accords 21 conclude, therefore, criterion. III 22 Applying Because currently appropriators, necessarily reduce 23 explaining basis recommendation, stated "materially affect" conclusion reflect assumptions about ability implement measures. n. 7. concluded "more offset" particular, request following areas: 24 (1) levels historical shortages failure develop diligently; 25 (2) accounting variations streamflow, continuous supply, possibilities enhancing conservation, substitute sources relieve demand River; (3) eliminate inefficiency 26 (4) precise nature interim ultimate Colorado; (5) likely suffer diversion, taking account diversion.14 IV 28 extends state's Whether turn proper, can reduction due 29 so ordered. 30 Chief BURGER, whom STEVENS joins, concurring judgment. 31 arises understandably intense competition nonnavigable, record cannot 32 N Immigration Nationality Decisions emphasize holdings come equal footing. (1907). Neither special respect water. need simply lie borders, 466, 558, Nor particular undiminished flow use. e.g. 393, 180, Each rivers pass Court, matter discretion, measure obligations apportion equitably. As process dependence equities. understanding holding join 33 O'CONNOR, POWELL 34 includes appropriator's beneficial reasonable. What reasonable, course, admit ready definition, being circumstances cast accusatory finger concluding "[t]he system canals transport fields inefficient." 8. 35 Undoubtedly, indicating large losses occur seepage evaporation transporting open ditches irrigation stock watering. Tr. 1315. leap, observing concluding, do, practices unreasonable. observes, ante, 185, limited feasible," (1922), "within limits." Ibid.1 District's distribution "inefficient," finding improved means District.2 36 "waste" "inefficiency" new yardstick—i.e., comparing economic gains costs achieving greater efficiency, succumbed suggestion. His embodies that, can, unidentified sense, "better" Vermejo, forced change 37 Today gone dangerously far toward accepting holds, 186, litigation States. notwithstanding recognition, 187, remote, difficult threatened harms, concession, 38 task outside concrete context either apportioned3 demonstrable potable drinking water.4 former context, reference actual fruits respective States.5 latter compelling reduces speculation otherwise attend assessment Where, here, rank importance Colorado,6 difficulty great. 39 highlights restraint proceed apportioned. invite permits obtain allegation engaging "wasteful" she waters, 40 suggest, blind itself State. Protection continue unreasonably practices. alter status quo 188, wasteful. To allow lesser showing neither equality litigants us, see 670, 289, (1931), nor sparing powers, id., 669, 289. Further, seriously undermine affirmation, 184, allocating 41 reflects paucity furnishes inadequate interests" stake, concur disposition insofar provide demonstrated engaged W.S. Land Cattle Co., 7201 (D.C.Cty.Colfax 1941). re Application Water Rights Corp., W-3961 (Dist.Ct., W.Div. 2, 20, 1975). et al. Corporation, Civil 76-244 (D.N.M.1978). injunction party action. N.M. Const. XVI, 2; Colo. 5, 6. administration governed statute. Colo.Rev.Stat. 37-92-101 seq. (1973); N.M.Stat.Ann. 72-1-1 (1978). riparian basic doctrines western purpose. distinctive feature ranked seniority. eastern, midwestern owner land contiguous watercourse stream quantity unpolluted quality, except proprietor whatever appropriators. Appropriative depend ownership maintained Riparian originate remain vested unexercised. fixed quantity; variable depending streamflow subject others. generally R. Clark, Waters (1967); W. Hutchins, Selected Problems Law West (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Misc.Pub. 418) (1942); Laws Nineteen 1206) (1971). An acre-foot volumetric measurement cover acre foot deep. One equals 43,560 325,900 gallons 60 farms irrigated reservoirs. Maxwell Wildlife Refuge District. early 1950's part reclamation project funded Government. diverts irrigate grow hay cattle operation. coal facilities. leases C.S. Springer Company. fair reading affected" expressly efforts, refer specifically canals. Pages 8, exception acknowledges affected third ground, namely, mere fact automatically entitles share se inconsistent improperly suing directly solely private individual—C.F. I.—in violation Eleventh Amendment, barred laches. find merit claims. substantial interest outcome suit, invoke Amendment immunity actions citizens owned trust citizens. Section 5. primary jointly purchase future. event, surely sovereign effects general prosperity Faced set 99, 668, (1907), controversy rises above local involves standpoint." laches For reasons elaborate below, infra, 186-188, hold suffered Therefore bar These bear burden proof disruption 187-188, 13. contrary dictated 528, 545, (1936), (1943) (dictum), merely holders protecting putting them 184. description accurate, rigidly follow procedure instead numerous respects. instance, unqualified 22,500 acre-feet, underlying grant. 489-490, 565-566. total 37,750 number 495-496, 567-568. guarantee Wyoming. 132.4 (1967). enhance equalize "practicable conservation" facilities already 485, 564. Massachusetts Massachusetts' took impending "serious shortage" Boston area absence "real damage" Connecticut. 664, 672, 287, 290, Although well involved rather note which, clear, "is rules [state] solution questions right." 289; 342-343, 479-480. Nothing suggested way depended adherence doctrine. bears proving cause damage." 290. 344-345, 480; 675-676; 393-394, 180-181. nominal defendant lawsuit. sued lawsuits defendant, Kansas' sustain "worked serious Kansas." 400, 184; 389-390, 178-179. initial met unless own expense, shifted nevertheless loss proof. show, effect, without using stream." 181. Moreover, magnitude," supported "clear evidence." 180-181; considers relevant. Additional hearings held, although they unnecessary light presented trial. remand, free reaffirm different principles significant relies proposition States, place flow. answering Wyoming's objection burdened observed: "We [the] [of appropriation] supply. Notwithstanding contention, proceeded line, for, shows, sanction, provided service reservoir adapted purpose meet requirements." 484-485, Evidence indicates employed engineering firm investigate feasibility constructing enclosed deliver owners. 1318. (1945); (1931); occurred represent pattern text. engage wholesale place, able determine restrain lands 1880's. irrigation, population acres cultivated, value farm products produced escalated dramatically. 108-109, 671-672. salutary corresponding changes acreage production corn wheat counties period. 110-113, 672-674. Using data, discern minimal diminution 674. Viewing overall impact economies, concluded: "[W]hen compare [to Kansas] obviously resulted seem equity forbids interference withdrawal purposes irrigation." Quite clearly, speculate equipped issue. Oregon's Walla Oregon. hand, Oregon agricultural Walla. revealed absolutely prohibiting periods shortage; channel users, absorbed gravel beneath reach 522-523, 542-543. "[t]o limit long injure compensating users." 523, 543. According "in operations mines, agriculture, timbering, power generation, domestic ." Reply Brief

Classification Label: 10