304 U.S. 92 (1938)
In 1928, the La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, a Colorado corporation, owned a ditch diverting water from the La Plata River in Colorado for irrigation purposes.1 On July 5, 1928, the company filed suit in the District Court for La Plata County against Hinderlider, the State Engineer of Colorado, and his subordinates.2 The complaint alleged that since June 24, 1928, the defendants had administered the river's water in a manner that deprived the company of water it claimed the right to divert, and it sought a mandatory injunction.3
The defendants admitted shutting the company's head-gate but maintained that their actions complied with the La Plata River Compact, an agreement between Colorado and New Mexico approved by Congress.4 The compact allocated shares of the river's flow between the states, including provisions for unrestricted use when flow was high and rotation of the entire flow during low-flow periods in summer months.5 In 1928, the state engineers of both states implemented a rotation schedule of ten-day alternating periods to maximize beneficial use when the river was low.6
The La Plata River originates in Colorado's mountains, flows into New Mexico, and joins the San Juan River.7 Both states had long used its waters for irrigation under the appropriation doctrine, where priority of beneficial use determines rights.8 A 1898 Colorado decree had adjudicated the Ditch Company's rights to 39.5 cubic feet per second, subject to five senior priorities totaling 19 second feet.9 On June 24, 1928, the stream flow at the Colorado gauging station measured 57 second feet.10
The District Court dismissed the suit after the first trial in 1930, finding the compact justified the defendants' actions.11 The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that judgment.12 After remand and a second trial on the same evidence, the trial court again entered a decree favorable to the Ditch Company in 1936, which the state supreme court affirmed in 1937.13 The United States Supreme Court granted review following an appeal.14
The compact had been negotiated after authorization by the legislatures of both states in 1921, ratified by them in 1923, and approved by Congress in 1925.15
Whether the La Plata River Compact between Colorado and New Mexico, approved by Congress, provides a defense to state water officials against claims by a Colorado ditch company based on a prior state court decree?16
Yes. The La Plata River Compact resulted from equitable apportionment agreed upon by Colorado and New Mexico and approved by Congress.19 The prior 1898 decree could not confer rights beyond Colorado's equitable share of the stream.20 The state water officials acted in compliance with the compact when they shut the headgate during the agreed rotation period.21 Therefore the compact justifies the officials' actions and supplies a complete defense to the ditch company's claims.22
The La Plata River Compact provides a valid defense to the state water officials in this case.23
Whether an interstate water apportionment compact binds private appropriators who obtained rights under state law before the compact's adoption?24
Private rights in water under state decrees are subject to the equitable apportionment of the interstate stream, whether by compact or judicial decree, because the state represents its citizens in such adjustments.25
Yes. The Ditch Company obtained its rights under the 1898 Colorado decree before the compact was adopted.26 The compact's apportionment nevertheless binds the company because Colorado could not grant more than its equitable share of the interstate stream.27 The evidence established that the rotation schedule was more efficient than a steady equal division of flow.28
An interstate water apportionment compact binds private appropriators even if their rights predate the compact.29
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a state court judgment that enjoins state officials from complying with an interstate compact on water rights?30
A claim based on the equitable interstate apportionment of water presents a federal question reviewable on certiorari, although not on appeal as a federal statute.31
Yes. The state court judgment enjoined compliance with the compact and rested on the premise that Colorado was entitled to a fixed quantity of water regardless of New Mexico's interests.32 This premise raises a federal common law question of equitable apportionment.33 The Supreme Court therefore possesses jurisdiction to review the judgment on certiorari after dismissing the appeal.34
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the state court judgment on certiorari.35
Whether the procedural history of multiple trials and state court reversals affects the availability of Supreme Court review in this interstate water dispute?36
The procedural history of trials and appeals in state court does not bar Supreme Court review when a federal question is presented.37
No. Two trials and two reversals occurred in the Colorado courts between 1930 and 1937.38 The case nevertheless presents an important federal question concerning the validity and effect of an interstate water compact.39 That federal question warrants review on certiorari regardless of the state procedural history.40
The procedural history does not affect the availability of Supreme Court review.41