Kansas v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States · 1907 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsOriginal JurisdictionInterstate Water Disputesoriginal jurisdictioncontroversies between statesjusticiable controversyinterstate common lawequality of right

Facts

Kansas and Colorado disputed rights in the waters of the Arkansas River, which flows from Colorado into Kansas. Colorado had authorized and developed extensive irrigation works diverting water from the river, and Kansas claimed those diversions diminished the river's natural flow and injured Kansas lands, property, health, and comfort. The United States intervened, asserting a national interest in reclamation of arid lands, but it did not claim that navigation was affected. The evidence showed substantial agricultural benefits in Colorado from irrigation and some perceptible injury in parts of the Arkansas Valley in Kansas, especially near the Colorado line.

Issue

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over this interstate dispute over the Arkansas River, and if so, is Kansas entitled to relief against Colorado's irrigation withdrawals? More specifically, may Colorado appropriate water for irrigation in a way that diminishes downstream flow into Kansas, or does equality of right between the States require judicial limitation of those withdrawals on the record presented?

Rule

The judicial power granted by Article III includes all justiciable controversies between States unless the Constitution expressly limits that power. In interstate water disputes, neither State may impose its own water-law policy on the other; instead, the Court determines the dispute by recognizing the equality of right of the States and by asking whether the diversion has so injured the complaining State's substantial interests as to destroy an equitable apportionment of benefits. Congress has paramount authority only where an enumerated power applies, such as preserving navigability, but there is no general federal power over reclamation of arid lands within States absent a constitutional grant.

🔒

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.

New Mexico files an original action in the Supreme Court against Texas, alleging that Texas-authorized diversions from an interstate river have reduced water reaching farms and towns in eastern New Mexico. Texas argues the dispute is nonjusticiable because it concerns sovereign policy choices about water allocation rather than a traditional private-law claim.

How should the Court most likely rule on Texas's objection?

Explanation. The majority treated an interstate dispute over the flow of a river as plainly justiciable. Article III's grant of judicial power includes justiciable controversies between States unless the Constitution expressly limits that power. The Court emphasized that such suits are not confined to boundary cases and may involve incorporeal rights such as rights relating to water flow.