Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co.
Headline: Court upholds Colorado–New Mexico water compact and reverses state court, allowing state engineers to rotate La Plata River flow and affecting irrigation rights across state lines.
Holding: The Court held that the Colorado–New Mexico compact validly apportioned La Plata River water, binds private water users, and reversed the state-court judgment that forbade rotating river flow under the compact.
- Allows state engineers to rotate river flow between Colorado and New Mexico during low water.
- Binds private water users to interstate compacts despite earlier state decrees.
- Affirms compacts as a valid way to settle interstate water disputes with congressional consent.
Summary
Background
A Colorado irrigation company sued Colorado water officials after they shut its headgate in June 1928, claiming the company’s state decree entitled it to take most river flow. The officials said they acted under a compact — an agreement between Colorado and New Mexico, approved by Congress — that apportioned the La Plata River and authorized alternating periods of use when the river was low.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the interstate compact could change how much water each State and their citizens could use. It explained that States may fairly divide an interstate stream’s flow by agreement, that such an agreement binds private water users within the States, and that a state court could not ignore the compact’s allocation simply because a Colorado decree had previously granted rights to the company. The Court found no shown unfairness or procedural defect in making or applying the compact and held that the compact’s rotation plan was a valid way to secure the greatest beneficial use.
Real world impact
The decision means state engineers may administer the river under the compact’s terms, including rotating the entire flow between the States during low-water periods, and private irrigators must accept the compact’s apportioned shares even if earlier state decrees suggested larger claims. The opinion was reviewed here as a federal question and the state-court injunction against compact-based rotation was reversed.
Dissents or concurrances
The Colorado courts were divided below, with at least one justice dissenting from decisions that rejected the compact; Justice Cardozo did not participate in this Court’s decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?