The Holly chieftain., 1922-10-12
COURT DENIES
REHEARING
u. S. SUPREME COURT ORDERED
MINOR CHANGES IN THE
DECREE.
WATER ALLOWANCE CUT
PoUDRE IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RANCHES RESTRICTED TO
LARAMIE RIVER USE.

NaSnlnStOn.-Ine supreme Sourt
denied the piicntion of the state of
Colorado and others for rehearing
of the original case brought by
the state of Wyoming. arising out of
the diversion of the waters of the Lar
annie river in which the court fixed the
rule that priority of appropriation was
controlling In establishing the right to
use water taken from interstate
streams, but ordered certain minor
changes in the decree.
Without changing its position on the
priority Of appropriation principle an
nounced in Its decision of June 5, last,
as applying to the use of water from
Interstate streams for use for lrriga
tiOn, the court directed that Its original
opinion be modified in certain respects.
Under the notifications the state Of
Colorado and the other parties Joining
with the state in the suit would be re-
stricted to the use of 1880 acre feet
of water per annum from the Laramie
river, through what is designated as
the I.aramie-Poudre tunnel project to
the use of $4,000 acre feet of water per
annum through what is designated as
the sky line dltch appropriation in
Colorado, and to the use of 4,250 acre
feet of water per amman through the
Meadow Land appropriations shown in
the evidence, but would be permitted
to continue to exercisesthe right now
existing, which the court declared 1t
recognized and to divert from the
headwaters of Deadman creek, Colo
RADIO tributary of the Laramie river,
the relatively small amount of water
appropriated from 1t prior to 1902.
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 exer-
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, One-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,
1t was said, must now content them.
selves with only $500 acre feet of wa.
ter from the Laramie river.
The dispute has been hanging in the
courts for number of years and has
attracted nationwide attention be.
cause of the matters at 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 MS n sOver-
eighty it should not he compelled to
abide by priority rights with reference
to the diversion of water from the Lar
annie river. 1t cOntended 1t should he
allowed 10 use fair share of the
stream.
Attorney General keyes said he
looked upon the case as victory as
well 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 the
high court has decreed that 15,5O0 is Il
fair share in view of other priorties," !"
he asserted.
I'VE have lost our argument that
rights between states should be settled
on a 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
to another