San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) [1982]
459 U.S. 176 · Supreme Court of the United States (Original) · United States
Water Lawwater-lawWater LawInterstate water compact / Equitable apportionment
Issue
How to equitably apportion the river when no compact has been approved by Congress.
Held
The Court applied equitable apportionment, considering factors like physical and climatic conditions, conservation, and efficiency.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) is included in the Water Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment. The reported citation is 459 U.S. 176, and the decision is associated with Supreme Court of the United States (Original). In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) is: Original suit between Colorado and New Mexico over apportionment of the San Juan River. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Water Law, use the facts to explain why Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) is reported as a decision of Supreme Court of the United States (Original). The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
How to equitably apportion the river when no compact has been approved by Congress.
Held
The Court applied equitable apportionment, considering factors like physical and climatic conditions, conservation, and efficiency.
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of a compact, the Supreme Court apportions interstate rivers equitably, balancing multiple factors.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: In the absence of a compact, the Supreme Court apportions interstate rivers equitably, balancing multiple factors. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Water Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) is a case to use when a Water Law answer needs an authority on Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) (459 U.S. 176) strengthens a Water Law answer because the case reflects the principle that In the absence of a compact, the Supreme Court apportions interstate rivers equitably, balancing multiple factors. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as How to equitably apportion the river when no compact has been approved by Congress. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
water-law
Water Law
Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment in Water Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Interstate water compact / Equitable apportionment, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use San Juan River Project: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona (Upper Colorado River Basin Compact) in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Original suit between Colorado and New Mexico over apportionment of the San Juan River., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.