UNIVERSITY OF M

WYOMING v. COLORADO.

Wiggins v. Muscupiabe Land & Water
Co. 113 Cal. 182, 32 L.R.A. 667, 54 Am.
St. Rep. 337, 45 Pac. 160; Bathgate v.
Irvine, 126 Cal. 135, 58 Pac. 442; South-
ern California Invest. Co. v. Wilshire, 144
Cal. 68, 77 Pac. 767; Anaheim Union
Water Co. v. Fuller, 150 Cal. 327, 11
L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 88 Pac. 980; Clark v.
Allaman, 71 Kan. 206, 70 L.R.A. 971,
80 Pac. 585; Matagorda Canal Co. v.
Markham Irrig. Co.
—, 154 S. W. 1176; McCarter v. Hudson
Tex. Civ. App.
County Water Co. 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 14
L.R.A.(N.S.) 197, 118 Am. St. Rep. 754,
65 Atl. 494, 10 Ann. Cas. 116.

The underlying physical or natural reason of these decisions is the fact that water diverted beyond the watershed does not return in whole or in part to the parent stream, as it does when used within the watershed. The obligation to return surplus water is very generally established in the arid states by statute or the decisions of courts.

1 Wiel, Water Rights, 282; Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co. 16 Idaho, 484, 133 Am. St. Rep. 125, 101 Pac. 1058. Each watershed has a natural unity and sanctity of its own. There can be no equitable division of its waters between lands or inhabitants within the watershed and those located in other watersheds, which does not recognize the laws of nature and the natural preference which is inherent in the lands and people of the valley.

Montrose Canal Co. v. Loutsenhizer Ditch Co. 23 Colo. 233, 48 Pac. 532; Sweet v. Syracuse, 129 N. Y. 335, 27 N. E. 1081, 29 N. E. 289; 1 Wiel, Water Rights, 18; Kidd v. Laird, 15 Cal. 162, 76 Am. Dec. 472, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 571.

Mr. Douglas A. Preston, Attorney General of Wyoming, and Messrs. N. E. Corthell and John W. Lacey, filed a separate brief for complainant.

Mr. Fred Farrar, Attorney General of Colorado, and Messrs. Delph E. Carpenter and Julius C. Gunter, argued the cause and filed a brief for defendants on original argument:

The relation of the Federal government to the waters of streams like the Laramie was that of sovereignty. This relation passed to the states upon their erection without any express legislation.

Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 224, 230, 11 L. ed. 571, 574; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 394, 24 L. ed. 248; Weber v. Harbor Comrs. 18 Wall. 57, 65, 21 L. ed. 798, 801; Mumford v. Wardell, 6 Wall. 435, 18 L. ed. 760; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 411, 10 L. ed. 997, 1013; 66 L. ed.

Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Pet. 253, 10 L. ed.
955; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146
U. S. 435, 36 L. ed. 1036, 13 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 110; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S.
371, 35 L. ed. 428, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808,
838; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.
v. St. Paul Water Comrs. 168 U. S. 349,
42 L. ed. 497, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 157.

may insist upon this right rests largely
The extent to which a sovereign state
with her.

209 U. S. 349, 357, 52 L. ed. 828, 832, 28
Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter,
Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, 14 Ann. Cas. 560;
S. 230, 51 L. ed. 1038, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep.
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. 206 U.
618, 11 Ann. Cas. 488.

came the owner, in her sovereign capacity,
When Colorado became a state, she be-
independent of and behind her people,
as to all her great natural resources, such
as air, light, and water, with equal rights
as the original thirteen states.

89, 52 Am. Rep. 261; Hudson Water
Mannville Co. v. Worcester, 138 Mass.
County Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 353,
52 L. ed. 831, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, 14
Ann. Cas. 560; Walbridge v. Robinson,
22 Idaho, 240, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 240, 125
Pac. 812.

the states of this Union of states to own
It is the sovereign right of each one of
and protect its great natural resources,
and its privilege to come into this court
and ask legal protection of the right to
such great natural resources.

L. ed. 497, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331, 200 U.
Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208, 45
S. 496, 50 L. ed. 572, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep.
268; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.
206 U. S. 230, 51 L. ed. 1044, 27 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 618, 11 Ann. Cas. 488, 237 U.
46 L. ed. 838, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552, 206
S. 474, 59 L. ed. 1054, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep.
U. S. 46, 51 L. ed. 956, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep.
631; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125,

655.

at all times obtained in Colorado and
The doctrine of prior appropriation has
Wyoming.

Bean v. Morris, 221 U. S. 485, 55 L.
States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co.
ed. 821, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 703; United
174 U. S. 690, 43 L. ed. 1136, 19 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 770; Gutierres v. Albuquerque
Land & Irrig. Co. 188 U. S. 545, 47 L. ed.
Robinson, 22 Idaho, 240, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.)
588, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Walbridge v.
240, 125 Pac. 812; Coffin v. Left Hand
Ditch Co. 6 Colo. 443; Thomas v. Guir-
aud, 6 Colo. 532; Hammond v. Rose, 11
Colo. 526, 7 Am. St. Rep. 258, 19 Pac.
466; Oppenlander v. Left Hand Ditch Co.
18 Colo. 144, 31 Pac. 854; Willey v.

Decker, 11 Wyo. 516, 100 Am. St. Rep., 939, 73 Pac. 210; Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. 339, 345, 53 L. ed. 822, 825, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Cascade Town Co. v. Empire Water & P. Co. 181 Fed. 1015.

238, 94 Pac. 339; Sternberger v. Seaton Min. Co. 45 Colo. 403, 102 Pac. 168; Moyer v. Preston, 6 Wyo. 318, 71 Am. St. Rep. 914, 44 Pac. 847; Broder v. Natoma Water & Min. Co. 101 U. S. 274, 276, 25 L. ed. 790, 791, 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 33; United States Freehold Land & Emi

Each sovereign state has the right to regulate diversion and distribution of wa-gration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 470, ters within her own borders in such manner as she may elect, including the right to change her doctrines or rules in such manner and as frequently as she may desire.

Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 94, 51 L. ed. 956, 973, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655; United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 174 U. S. 690, 702-706, 43 L. ed. 1136, 1141-1143, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 370, 49 L. ed. 1085, 1088, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. 339, 345, 53 L. ed. 822, 825, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; 1 Kinney, Irrig. 2d ed. pp. 1025, 1029, 1088.

In the states of the arid region including Colorado and Wyoming, the commonlaw doctrine of riparian rights has been abolished, and in lieu thereof these states have uniformly adopted the doctrine of acquisition of title to water by priority of appropriation for beneficial uses.

61 U. S. App. 13, 89 Fed. 769; Kinney, Irrig. 2d ed. chap. 31, § 583, pp. 998, 1003; Willey v. Decker, 11 Wyo. 498, 100 Am. St. Rep. 939, 73 Pac. 210; Johnston v. Little Horse Creek Irrigating Co. 13 Wyo. 228, 70 L.R.A. 341, 110 Am. St. Rep. 986, 79 Pac. 22; Parshall v. Cowper, 22 Wyo. 385, 143 Pac. 302; Whalon v. North Platte Canal & Colonization Co. 11 Wyo. 344, 71 Pac. 995; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507, 22 L. ed. 414, 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 583; Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 456, 25 L. ed. 240, 241, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 504; Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 95; Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging Co. 104 C. C. A. 136, 181 Fed. 65; Cascade Town Co. v. Empire Water & Power Co. 181 Fed. 1014, 123 C. C. A. 355, 205 Fed. 127; Miller v. Wheeler, 54 Wash. 436, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1065, 103 Pac. 641; Offield v. Ish, 21 Wash. 277, 57 Pac. 809; 1 Kinney, Irrig. 2d ed. § 587, pp. 1009, 1010; Long, Irrig. 2d ed. p. 217; 1st ed. p. 92.

The first appropriator is entitled to divert such water as may be necessary for the beneficial use for which the same was appropriated, regardless of junior appropriations, and even though it requires the entire flow of the stream to supply his prior wants.

Thomas v. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 532; Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 95; Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho, 750, 23 Pac. 541.

The disposition and regulation of the use of waters is a matter of local law with each state, and the rules adopted by the Constitution, laws, and decisions of the courts of each state will be followed by the courts of the United States.

Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co. 224 U. S. 107, 56 L. ed. 686, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 470; Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. 339, 342, 344, 53 L. ed. 822, 824, 825, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 94, 51 L. ed. 956, 973, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 370, 49 L. ed. 1085, 1088, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land & Irrig. Co. 188 U. S. 545, 550, 552, 554, 47 L. ed. 588, 589, 591, 593, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 174 U. S. 690, 702, 706, 43 L. ed. 1136, 1141, 1142, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co. 6 Colo. 446; Oppenlander v. Left Hand Ditch Co. 18 Colo. 142, 31 Pac. 854; Farm Invest. Co. v. Carpenter, 1 Kinney, Irrig. 2d ed. p. 1027; United 9 Wyo. 110, 50 L.R.A. 747, 87 Am. St. States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. Rep. 918, 61 Pac. 258; Clough v. Wing, 174 U. S. 690, 43 L. ed. 1136, 19 Sup. 2 Ariz. 382, 17 Pac. 453; Reno Smelting, Ct. Rep. 770; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Mill & Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 Land & Irrig. Co. 188 U. S. 546, 47 L. Nev. 269, 4 L.R.A. 60, 19 Am. St. Rep. ed. 588, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Clark v. 364, 21 Pac. 317; United States v. Rio Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 9 N. M. 302, 51 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Pac. 674; Drake v. Earhart, 2 Idaho, 750, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 51 L. 23 Pac. 541; Stowell v. Johnson, 7 Utah, ed. 956, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655; Boquillas 215, 26 Pac. 290; Hammond v. Rose, 11 Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. Colo. 526, 7 Am. St. Rep. 258, 19 Pac. 339, 53 L. ed. 822, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; 466; Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch & Exten- Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co. sion Co. 42 Colo. 427, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) | 224 U. S. 107, 56 L. ed. 686, 32 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 470; Snyder v. Colorado Gold, & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365, Dredging Co. 104 C. C. A. 136, 181 Fed. 366, 369, 41 L. ed. 747-749, 17 Sup. Ct.

703; Lamson v. Vailes, 27 Colo. 201, 61
Pac. 231; Stockman v. Leddy, 55 Colo.
24, 129 Pac. 220, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1052.
The local law of Wyoming can have no
extraterritorial effect, and especially when
prejudicial to the rights of other states.
Story, Confl. L. § 32, p. 29; Farnum v.
Blackstone Canal Co. 1 Sumn. 62, Fed.
Cas. No. 4,675; The Exchange v. M'Fad-
don, 7 Cranch, 116, 136, 3 L. ed. 287, 293;
Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 176; Hilton
v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 40 L. ed. 95, 16
Sup. Ct. Rep. 139; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc.
Law, 1051; 1 Wharton, International Law
Dig. pp. 38, 39; Crosby v. Hanover, 36
N. H. 423; Holyoke Water Power Co. v.
Connecticut River Co. 52 Conn. 575; Me-
Carter v. Hudson County Water Co. 70
N. J. Eq. 717, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 197, 118
Am. St. Rep. 754, 65 Atl. 489, 10 Ann.
Cas. 116; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S.
46, 113, 117, 51 L. ed. 956, 980, 983, 27
Sup. Ct. Rep. 655; Bean v. Morris, 221
U. S. 485, 486, 55 L. ed. 821, 822, 31 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 703.

Both states, by their Constitutions, laws, and the decisions of their courts, reserve their waters for themselves, and deny and declare against any servitudes for the benefit of neighboring states.

Lamson v. Vailes, 27 Colo. 203, 61 Pac. 231; Stockman v. Leddy, 55 Colo. 27, 129 Pac. 220, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1052; Farm Invest. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 135, 50 L.R.A. 747, 87 Am. St. Rep. 918, 61 Pac. 258; Grover Irrig. & Land Co. v. Lovelle Ditch, Reservoir & Irrig. Co. 21 Wyo. 204, L.R.A.1916C, 1275, 131 Pac. 43, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1207.

Mr. Leslie E. Hubbard, former Attorney General of Colorado, and Messrs. Delph E. Carpenter, Platt Rogers, and Fred Farrar argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Julius C. Gunter and Ralph F. C. Kerwin, also filed a brief for defend

ants.

Messrs. Victor E. Keyes, Delph E. Carpenter, and Platt Rogers argued the cause for defendants on second reargument.

Solicitor General Davis argued the cause, and, with Assistant Attorney General Kearful and Special Assistants to the Attorney General Truesdell and Ward, filed a brief for the United States on first reargument.

Assistant Attorney General Riter argued the cause, and, with Solicitor General Beck and Special Assistant to the Attorney General Truesdell, filed a brief for the United States on second reargument: Because of its fugitive nature, the only

1008

property rights which exist in water in its
natural state are rights of use, the corpus
being only susceptible of ownership while
in possession. This corpus, while in pos-
session, is personal property; but the
right of use of the water in its natural
state is a real property right of the high-
est dignity and value.

Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 397, Fed.
Cas. No. 14,312; 3 Kent, Com. p. 439;
Embrey v. Owen, 6 Exch. 353, 155 Eng.
Reprint, 579, 20 L. J. Exch. N. S. 212,
15 Jur. 633, 10 Eng. Rul. Cas. 179; Har-
grave v. Cook, 108 Cal. 72, 30 L.R.Á. 390,
41 Pac. 18; Smith v. Rochester, 92 N. Y.
480, 44 Am. Rep. 393; 1 Wiel, Water
Rights, 1911, 3d ed. §§ 283, 285, 711, pp.
298, 301, 755, 777; Gardner v. Newburgh,
2 Johns. Ch. 166, 7 Am. Dec. 526; Long
Irrig. 2d ed. 1916, § 34, p. 70; 2 Kinney,
Irrig. 2d ed. § 769, p. 1328; Washb.
1284; Travelers Ins.
Easements, 4th ed. pp. 316, 317; 2 Washb.
Real Prop. 6th ed.
Co. v. Childs, 25 Colo. 363, 54 Pac. 1020;
Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 492, 99 Pac.
322.

Because of the necessity of protecting the public interests therein (mainly navigation and fishery), property rights in navigable waters in England belonged prima facie to the Crown, and in this The country they belong prima facie to the municipal sovereignties, the states. Federal government, though having full control (under the commerce clause) for purposes of foreign and interstate navigation, has no right of property in such waters or their shores or beds except as it derives it from the states, either by grant or under operation of state law.

Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 15, 48, 38 L. ed. 331, 349, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548: L. ed. 428, 433, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 381, 35 838; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. 229 U. S. 53, 62, 57 L. ed. 1063, 1075, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667; United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 174 U. S. 690, 43 L. ed. 1136, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770.

The crux of the question is whether non-navigable waters are publici juris, like navigable waters. Ownership by the Such waters are not publici juris, states depends upon showing that they and ownership of usufructuary rights therein rests upon the same basis and is of the same character as ownership of land.

are.

Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 47 L. ed. 1156, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 685; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 229, 11 L. ed. 565, 573; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 38 L. ed. 331, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; Smith

259 U. S.

v. Rochester, 92 N. Y. 473, 44 Am. Rep., Min. Rep. 583; Basey v. Gallagher, 20 393; Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. Wall. 670, 681, 22 L. ed. 452, 454, 1 Mor. 166, 7 Am. Dec. 526; Ex parte Jennings, Min. Rep. 683; Broder v. Natoma Water 6 Cow. 539, 16 Am. Dec. 447; Watuppa & Min. Co. 101 U. S. 274, 25 L. ed. 790, Reservoir Co. v. Fall River, 147 Mass. 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 33; 1 Wiel, Water 554, 1 L.R.A. 466, 18 N. E. 465; Home of Rights, 3d ed. §§ 66, 92, p. 116; 1 Aged Women v. Com. 202 Mass. 433, 24 Kinney, Irrig. & Water Rights, 2d ed. L.R.A. (N.S.) 79, 89 N. E. 124; Re Opin- §§ 596, 611, 636; Sturr v. Beck, 133 ion of Justices, 118 Me. 506, 106 Atl. U. S. 541, 552, 33 L. ed. 761, 765, 10 865; Wadsworth v. Smith, 11 Me. 280, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Jacob v. Lorenz, 98 Am. Dec. 525; Chapman v. Kimball, 9 Cal. 335, 33 Pac. 119; Beaver Brook Conn. 40, 21 Am. Dec. 707; Barclay R. & Reservoir & Canal Co. y. St. Vrain ReserCoal Co. v. Ingham, 36 Pa. 194, 200; voir & Fish Co. 6 Colo. App. 138, 40 Pac. Angell, Watercourses, 6th ed. 11 2, 535; 1066; Long, Irrig. 2d. ed. § 74, p. 134; Gould, Water, 3d ed. ¶ 46; Cobb v. Lindley, Mines, 2d ed. § 249; Butte City Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 378; Grey ex rel. Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 125, 49 Simmons v. Paterson, 60 N. J. Eq. 389, L. ed. 412, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211; Clason 48 L.R.A. 717, 83 Am. St. Rep. 642, 45 v. Matko, 223 U. S. 646, 654, 56 L. ed. Atl. 995; Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & B. B. 588, 594, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 392; Jennison R. Co. 27 N. J. Eq. 638; Doremus v. v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 456, 25 L. ed. 240, Paterson, 65 N. J. Eq. 712, 55 Atl. 304; 241, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 504; Broder v. McCarter v. Hudson County Water Co. Natoma Water & Min. Co. 101 U. S. 274, 70 N. J. Eq. 695, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 197, 275, 25 L. ed. 790, 791, 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 118 Am. St. Rep. 754, 65 Atl. 489, 10 33; Union Mill & Min. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Ann. Cas. 116; Mason v. Hill, 5 Barn. & Sawy. 184, Fed. Cas. No. 14, 371, 8 Mor. Ad. 1, 110 Eng. Reprint, 692, 2 Nev. & Min. Rep. 90; Yale, Min. & Water Rights, M. 747, 2 L. J. K. B. N. S. 118, 25 Eng. p. 380; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 338, 10 Rul. Cas. 383; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Pac. 674; Smith v. Hawkins, 110 Cal. Mason, 397, Fed. Cas. No. 14,312; Fer- 125, 42 Pac. 453; Benton v. Johncox, 17 gusson v. Shirreff, 6 Sc. Sess. Cas. 2d Wash. 289, 39 L.R.A. 107, 61 Am. St. series, 1363, 16 Scot. Jur. 580. Rep. 912, 49 Pac. 495; Morgan v. Shaw, 47 Or. 337, 83 Pac. 534; Smith v. Denniff, 24 Mont. 21, 50 L.R.A. 741, 81 Am. St. Rep. 408, 60 Pac. 398; Barkley v. Tieleke, 2 Mont. 64, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 666; Cruse v. McCauley, 96 Fed. 373; Howell v. Johnson, 89 Fed. 558; Williams v. Altnow, 51 Or. 275, 95 Pac. 200, 97 Pac. 539; United States v. Rio Grande Dam Irrig. Co. 174 U. S. 690, 43 L. ed. 1136, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land & Irrig. Co. 188 U. S. 545, 47 L. ed. 588, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; 1 Kinney, Irrig. pp. 1091, 1095; Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 95 Pac. 732, 98 Pac. 1083, 102 Pac. 728; Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U. S. 339, 344, 53 L. ed. 822, 825, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 568, 55 L. ed. 853, 858, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663, 690, 56 L. ed. 1218, 1259, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 516, 10 L. ed. 264, 273.

Water rights in non-navigable waters, being vested rights in real property, the state has the same control over them as, and no greater control than, over vested rights in land. Regulation under the police power should not be confused, as it often is, with rights of property in the state, or any denial of property rights in the individual.

Wiel, Water Rights, 3d ed. pp. 196, 197; Roberson v. People, 40 Colo. 124, 90 Pac. 79; Broad Run Invest. Co. v. Deuel & S. Improv. Co. 47 Colo. 579, 108 Pac. 755; Combs v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. 38 Colo. 428, 88 Pac. 396.

Water rights now vested in others derive their existence, like titles to land, from the acts of Congress. All interest in water not so granted necessarily remains in the United States. The acts grant nothing to the states, and ratification of state constitutions asserting state ownership of water does not devest the United States of its property rights therein.

St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272, 289, 19 L. ed. 74, 78; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U. S. 229, 242, 57 L. ed. 490, 496, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 107, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242; Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 519, 47 L. ed. 1156, 1157, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 685; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507, 510, 22 L. ed. 414, 415, 1 Mor.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an original suit in this court by the state of Wyoming against the state of Colorado and two Colorado corporations to prevent a proposed diversion in Colorado of part of the waters of the Laramie river, an interstate stream. The bill was brought in 1911, the evidence