Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130560
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:44:00+00:00

Document:
METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 391 right of a project that overlaps the stateline. Protection of such a right is secured to its holder by the constitution of the United States.833 In absence of State statutes.-In the absence of State statutes pertaining specifically to exports or imports of water across statelines: (1) In 1903, the Wyoming Supreme Court observed that: "Upon the general principles governing such appropriation, we perceive no reason, if the same be not prohibited by statute, why the owner of lands in another state may not at a point in this State lawfully divert the water of a stream flowing in both states and conduct such water upon his lands for their irrigation, and thereupon secure a valid water right."834 Subsequently, as noted below, the Wyoming Legislature did place restrictions on such diversions of water. (2) In 1947, the Colorado Supreme Court held that statements that it had made in an opinion delivered nearly a half-century earlier, while spoken concerning a ditch diverting water within the State for irrigation of lands outside of it, apply equally to ditches that divert water outside the State for use within it. These statements were to the effect that it cannot be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a law (for the adjudication of priorities) that would operate beyond the territorial limits of the State, or that it was legislating for the reclamation or irrigation of lands beyond its boundaries, or was making provision by way of police regulations over a territory beyond its jurisdiction.835 These two Colorado decisions, then, did not pass on the legality of diversions of water across the stateline. They held that under the State statutory procedure there was no provision for adjudicating claimed rights to make diversions of water for transportation either into or out of the State. Without determination of the claimed rights, there could of course be no enforcement under the statutory procedure. 833 Wetland v. Pioneer In. Co., 259 U. S. 498, 501-502 (1922). The appropriation in this case, with a priority as of 1890, was made for the diversion of water from an interstate stream (North Fork of the Republican River) within Colorado. About one-third of the water was used within Colorado, and the remainder was transported into Nebraska for beneficial use therein. Suit to enjoin the Colorado water administration officials from interfering with the right of the irrigation company to divert water into Nebraska under its 1890 priority was brought in 1913 in the Federal court for the District of Colorado. Decree of injunction was affirmed in Wetland v. Pioneer In. Co., 258 Fed. 519 (8th Cir. 1916). In 1917, the Colorado legislature passed a statute forbidding diversion of water into another State for use therein: Colo. Laws 1917, p. 539, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 148-1-1 (1963). 834 Willey v. Decker, 11 Wyo. 496, 534, 73 Pac. 210 (1903). 835 Adjudication of out-of-State diversions would not be within the purview of the statutory proceedings, the purpose of which is to furnish the basis for division of the stream waters among the ditches diverting water therefrom through control of their headgates by public water officials: West End In. Co. v. Garvey, 117 Colo. 109, 113-114, 184 Pac. (2d) 476 (1947). Under the adjudication statute of Colorado, the district court of La Plata County did not have jurisdiction to award priority to a ditch which, though having its headgate in Colorado, was intended to and did carry water into New Mexico for irrigation there: Lamson v. Vailes, 27 Colo. 201, 203-204, 61 Pac. 231 (1900).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 148
 v. 
 v. 
 v.