Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureInterstate CompactsFederal Question JurisdictionInterstate Water Rightsequitable apportionmentinterstate streamcompact clausecongressional consent

Facts

The La Plata River rises in Colorado and flows into New Mexico, and in both states its waters had long been used for irrigation under the appropriation doctrine. The ditch company held a Colorado decree declaring it entitled to divert 39 1/2 second feet, subject to five senior Colorado priorities totaling 19 second feet, and it claimed that when 57 second feet were in the stream on June 24, 1928, it was entitled to all water beyond those Colorado priorities. Colorado and New Mexico had entered into the La Plata River Compact, approved by Congress, which apportioned the river and authorized the state engineers to rotate the full flow between the two states when low water made that the greatest beneficial use. Acting under that compact, the state engineers rotated the water in alternating ten-day periods, and during one such period Colorado officials shut the company's headgate so the water would pass to New Mexico.

Issue

May Colorado water officials rely on a congressionally approved interstate compact equitably apportioning an interstate stream to restrict a Colorado appropriator's use, notwithstanding an earlier Colorado decree recognizing that appropriator's right under state law? Also, does the case present a federal question reviewable by this Court?

Rule

On an interstate stream, no state may claim or confer rights to the entire flow regardless of the interests of the other state; each state is entitled only to an equitable share under federal common law. An interstate compact, consented to by Congress, may fix that equitable apportionment without a prior judicial or quasi-judicial determination, and the resulting apportionment binds private appropriators represented by their states, even if their state-granted rights predated the compact. Delegation to state engineers of authority to determine when rotation is needed to secure the greatest beneficial use is constitutionally permissible as a matter of administrative detail.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In western Colorado, Nora Velasquez holds a 1904 state decree allowing her ranch to divert 30 cubic feet per second from the Piedra River, which then flows into New Mexico. In a dry year, Colorado and New Mexico enforce a congressionally approved compact requiring Colorado to leave part of the flow for downstream users in New Mexico, and Colorado officials reduce Nora's diversion accordingly.

If Nora sues in Colorado court claiming her earlier state decree gives her an absolute vested right to take the full decreed amount whenever that much water is physically available in Colorado, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. On an interstate stream, a state's decree cannot confer rights beyond that state's equitable share. A congressionally approved compact may fix that equitable apportionment, and private appropriators are bound even if their state-law rights predated the compact. The majority assumed the decree was a property right against Colorado and those claiming under it, but not beyond Colorado's equitable portion of the interstate stream.