Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
58 S. Ct. 803, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 1019, 304 U.S. 92 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An interstate compact, approved by Congress, that equitably apportions the water of an interstate stream is binding upon the citizens of the signatory states. A state court decree cannot grant a private water right that is superior to the state's obligation to equitably share the stream with other states.
Facts:
- The La Plata River is an interstate, non-navigable stream that flows from Colorado into New Mexico.
- Both Colorado and New Mexico follow the appropriation doctrine for water rights, where the first to put water to beneficial use has a senior right.
- In an 1898 Colorado state court decree, the La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company (Ditch Company) was granted a right to divert a specific quantity of water from the river.
- Some water users in New Mexico had appropriation dates that were senior to the Ditch Company's.
- To resolve conflicts, Colorado and New Mexico entered into the La Plata River Compact, which was approved by Congress in 1925.
- The Compact established a system for apportioning the river's water, including a provision for rotating the entire flow between the states in alternating ten-day periods during times of low water.
- In June 1928, pursuant to the Compact's rotation agreement, Colorado State Engineer Hinderlider ordered the Ditch Company's headgate closed, diverting the entire river flow to New Mexico for a ten-day period.
Procedural Posture:
- The La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company sued Hinderlider, the Colorado State Engineer, in the District Court for La Plata County, Colorado, seeking an injunction.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the State Engineer's actions were justified by the Compact.
- The Ditch Company, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado, which reversed the trial court.
- After an initial appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of a final judgment, the case was retried in the Colorado District Court.
- Pursuant to the state supreme court's mandate, the trial court entered a decree for the Ditch Company.
- Hinderlider, as appellant, appealed this second judgment to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment in favor of the Ditch Company.
- Hinderlider, as appellant, then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an interstate compact for the equitable apportionment of water, approved by Congress, unconstitutionally impair the vested water rights of a private company that were previously established by a state court decree?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brandeis
No, an interstate compact for the equitable apportionment of water does not unconstitutionally impair pre-existing water rights established by a state court decree. The fundamental principle governing interstate streams is equitable apportionment. A state cannot grant a water right to its citizens that exceeds its own equitable share of the stream's water. Therefore, the Ditch Company's right, established by the Colorado decree, was always subject to the paramount interstate allocation of water. The Colorado decree could only adjudicate rights to Colorado's share and was not res judicata as to New Mexico or its citizens. The La Plata River Compact is a constitutionally sanctioned method for states to determine their respective equitable shares, akin to a treaty. Once enacted, the Compact is binding on all citizens of the signatory states, and their individual water rights are subordinate to its terms. The Compact did not take a vested property right from the Ditch Company; rather, it defined the limits of that right by quantifying Colorado's share of the interstate resource.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the principle that private water rights on interstate streams are subordinate to the doctrine of equitable apportionment between states. It elevates interstate compacts as a primary and binding method for resolving water disputes, treating them as legally equivalent to a Supreme Court decree in their effect on citizens. The case is a cornerstone of water law in the American West, clarifying that state-granted property rights are not absolute but are limited by the state's sovereign obligations to its neighbors. This precedent reinforces federal common law as the ultimate authority on interstate water allocation and encourages states to resolve disputes through negotiation rather than litigation.
