Cheyenne Wells record., 1922-10-12
0URT.''DEN|ES.
REHEAR|NG /
u. s, SUPREME COURT. ORDERED
MINOR CHANGES IN: THE =.
DECREE. =;
WATER ALLOWANCE O Gut
eoupRg IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RANCHES ..REsTRIcTEO TO-
Laramie RIVER USE.

Wasbincton.-The Supreme Court
denied the plicution of the state oi
Colorodo and others for IL rehehrins
of the original ease brought d!
the state of Wyoming arising OUT ol
tbe diversion of the waters OF the Lar
annie river in which the. court fixed the
ru,e that priority of appropriation was
controlling in establishing the rSht 10
use water taken from Interstate
streams. but ordered certain MINOR
changes in the decree
without changing its position on me
priority of appropriation princlplc an
nounced in its decision of June ., last
nc ,nnIyinr to the use of water from
Interstate streams for use for irriga-
tion. the court directed that It's original
ODinion be modified in certain respects.
Hinder the notifications the state OF
Colorado and the other parties joining
with thc state in the suit would be re-
stricted to the use of 11,jOO acre rect
of water per annun from the Laramie
river, through what is designated as
the Larame-Poudre tunnel project; to
the use of $1,000 acre feet of water per
annum through what is designated as
the sky line ultch appropriation in
Colorado, and to the use of 4,2JO acre
feet of water per anrium through the
Meadow Land appropriations shown in
the evidence. but would be permitted
to continue to exercise the right now
existing, which the court declared 1t
recognized and to divert from the
headwatcrs of Deadnlan creek, II Colo
RADIO tributary of the Laramie river,
the relatively small amount of water
appropriated from it prior to 1907,
through what Is designated as the Will
son Supply ditch.
The notifications to the decree also
authorized Colorado and Wyoming or
any one recognized by either state as
entitled to do so. to continue to eNer-
else the right to divert water from
Band creek, in virtue of any existing
lawful appropriation of waters of the
creek.
The court imposed the cost of the
suit as follows: .. ,... :.
One-third upon Wyoming. onc.third
upon Colorado. and the other third
upon the two corporations which joined
Colorado in the suit.
Following action of the United
States Supreme Court in refusing to
rehear the COlOrado-WyOming irriga.
tion case, ranchers and others of the
POudre irrigation district in this state,
it was said, must now content them
selves with only 1900 acre feet of wa
ter from the Laramie river.
The dispute. has been hanging in the
courts for Il number of years and has
attracted nationwide attention. be.
cause of the matters ut stake, The
suit was started originally by Colorado
against Wyoming to obtain what was
called an equitable proportion of the
waters for irrigation purposes from the
Laramie river in Wyoming. ..
This state alleged that as Il sOver.
eighty it should not be compelled to
abide by priority rights with reference
to the diversion Of water from the Lar
annie river. 1t contended it should be
allowed to use II fair share of the
stream.
Attorney General Reyes said lie
looked upon the case as. Il victory us
we'll as defeat for the state.
In this suit, Colorado. sought to OBJ
tain from 10000 to 10000 acre feet of
water from the Laramie river, but tile
high court has Ilccrced that 1880 is Il
fair share in view of other priorities,"
he asserted.
I'VE have lost our argument that
rights between states should be settled
on basis of equitable proportion,
ment," he continued, "but have won on
the contention that we have the right
to divert water from one water shed
" announcer. =. e. 't.....;