Kansas v. Colorado
22 S. Ct. 552, 185 U.S. 125, 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2248 (1902)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over controversies between states, including disputes over the equitable apportionment of water in an interstate stream, and may act as a tribunal to resolve such conflicts when one state's actions are alleged to cause serious injury to another.
Facts:
- The Arkansas River is an interstate river that originates in the mountains of Colorado and flows through Colorado into the state of Kansas.
- The State of Kansas alleged that the State of Colorado, acting directly and through licensed private entities, was systematically diverting and impounding the waters of the Arkansas River.
- This diversion was allegedly depriving Kansas and its inhabitants of the water that had historically flowed into and across the state.
- Kansas claimed this deprivation of water was causing and threatening to cause significant injury to the property of the state itself, as well as to the property, health, and comfort of its citizens, particularly those residing in the Arkansas Valley.
- In its defense, Colorado asserted a sovereign right to consume all waters originating within its boundaries for the beneficial use of its own inhabitants, regardless of the impact on downstream states.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas filed a bill of complaint directly in the Supreme Court of the United States, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction against the State of Colorado.
- The State of Colorado responded by filing a demurrer to the bill, asking the Court to dismiss the case on the grounds that Kansas's complaint failed to state a valid legal claim.
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 the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to hear a controversy between two states where a downstream state alleges that an upstream state is diverting the entire flow of an interstate river, thereby causing widespread harm to the downstream state and its citizens?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Fuller
Yes. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over such a controversy, and the allegations are sufficient to state a claim that should proceed to a full hearing on the evidence. The Constitution grants the Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states precisely because it stripped states of the traditional tools of sovereign power, such as making treaties or war, to resolve their disputes. When one state alleges that another is inflicting a significant wrong, such as depriving it of the benefits of an interstate river, the controversy is justiciable in this Court. The Court can act as a special tribunal, applying principles of federal, state, and international law to find an equitable solution. Given the gravity of the issues, the Court will not dismiss the case on a demurrer based on technical admissions but will overrule the demurrer and allow the case to proceed to the evidence-gathering stage to ascertain all the relevant facts before making a final decision.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in the law of interstate water allocation. It firmly establishes that disputes between states over shared water resources are justiciable controversies falling under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. By rejecting Colorado's claim of absolute sovereignty over its waters and refusing to dismiss the case, the Court paved the way for the development of the doctrine of 'equitable apportionment.' This doctrine, which balances the interests and equities of the competing states, became the governing principle for all subsequent interstate water disputes, shaping water rights and resource management across the arid West.
