The following excerpt is from Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 F. 9 (9th Cir. 1917):
The question is presented as to the extent to which the judgment and decree of a court exercising jurisdiction in one state may become operative in another. And, incidentally, it is urged that, as to the waters of streams which are interstate in character, their benefits should be equitably distributed between the states through which they flow. The thought comes from the suggestion of the court, in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 117, 27 Sup.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956, that [245 F. 26] there might come a time when such a distribution would have to be made of the waters of the Arkansas river. A sufficient answer to the contention is that the pleadings and evidence in this case disclose no such condition as to require an equitable distribution of benefits of the waters of Salmon river and its tributaries between the states of Idaho and Nevada; and besides, the matter is one for adjustment between the states; it is not for individual users to raise a controversy about the use of such water in another state, out of the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.