Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/97767/nebraska-vs-wyoming
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 02:34:13
Document Index: 385090104

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 122', '§ 8', '§ 122', '§ 1114', '§ 8', '§ 122']

Nebraska Vs Wyoming - Citation 97767 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Nebraska Vs. Wyoming - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/97767CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJun-11-1945Case Number325 U.S. 589AppellantNebraskaRespondentWyomingExcerpt:
nebraska v. wyoming - 325 u.s. 589 (1945)
1. in a proceeding within the original jurisdiction of this court, brought by nebraska against wyoming, in which colorado was impleaded as a defendant and the united states was granted leave to intervene, this court makes an equitable apportionment between the states of the water of the north platte river. pp.
325 u. s. 591
325 u. s. 610
2. colorado and wyoming having the rule of priority of appropriation, and, that rule being dominant in the nebraska areas affected,..... Judgment:
2. Colorado and Wyoming having the rule of priority of appropriation, and, that rule being dominant in the Nebraska areas affected, the case is treated as involving appropriation rights in the three States. P.
325 U. S. 599
3. Since the dependable natural flow of the river during the irrigation season has long been over-appropriated, since the claims of the States to the water of the river are based not only on present uses but on projected additional uses as well, and since the claims to the water exceed the supply, there exists a conflict of interests of that character and dignity which makes the controversy a justiciable one within the original jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The water rights on which the North Platte Project and the Kendrick Project rest having been obtained in compliance with state law, it is unnecessary to determine what rights to unappropriated water of the river the United States may have. Nor is it important to the decree to be entered in this case that there may be unappropriated water to which the United States may in the future assert rights through the machinery of state law or otherwise. P.
that the United States did own all of the unappropriated water, the appropriations under state law were made to the individual landowners pursuant to the procedure which Congress provided in the Reclamation Act, and the rights so acquired are as definite and complete as if they were obtained by direct cession from the federal government. P.
5. Allocation of the water rights here in question to the States, who represent their citizens
in this proceeding, in no wise interferes with the ownership and operation by the United States of its storage and power plants, works, and facilities. P.
and importance of the case are apparent -- do not justify refusal by this Court to perform the important function entrusted to it by the Constitution. P.
7. Equitable apportionment among appropriation States does not require a literal application of the priority rule. P.
8. The decree of equitable apportionment to be entered in this case must deal with conditions as they exist at present and must be based on the dependable flow of the river which is not greater than the average condition which has prevailed since 1930. P.
9. The decree of equitable apportionment which is entered apportions the natural flow of the river among the three States to the Tri-State Dam in Nebraska but not below it. Pp.
325 U. S. 621
325 U. S. 654
10. The United States is not given a separate allocation of water, since the water rights appropriated by the Secretary of the Interior were adjudicated to be in the individual landoners and since the United States as an appropriator of storage water is represented by the Wyoming. P.
325 U. S. 629
11. Storage water is not included in the apportionment, although it is taken into account in determining each State's equitable share of the natural flow. P.
325 U. S. 639
12. The Court retains jurisdiction of the suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter of the controversy. P.
325 U. S. 655
purposes, were violating the rule of priority of appropriation in force in the three States and depriving Nebraska of water to which she was equitably entitled. The prayer was for a determination of the equitable share of each State in the water and of the priorities of all appropriations in both States, and for an injunction restraining the alleged wrongful diversions. Wyoming denied the diversion or use of any water to which Nebraska was equitably entitled, but joined in the prayer of Nebraska for an equitable apportionment. Colorado filed an answer, together with a cross-bill against Nebraska and Wyoming, which denied any use or threatened use of the water of the North Platte beyond her equitable share, and prayed for an equitable apportionment between the three States, excepting only the tributary waters of the South Platte and Laramie rivers. [
] At the conclusion of Nebraska's case and again after all the evidence was in, Colorado moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain any judgment in favor of, or against, any party. Colorado argues here that there should be no affirmative relief against her, and that she should be dismissed from the case.
The North Platte River rises in Northern Colorado in the mountainous region known as North Park. [
] It proceeds
There are six natural sections of the river basin: (1) North Park, Colorado, or, more accurately, Jackson County; (2) Colorado-Wyoming line to the Pathfinder Reservoir located between Rawlins and Casper, Wyoming; (3) Pathfinder Reservoir to Whalen, Wyoming which is 42 miles from the Nebraska line; (4) Whalen, Wyoming to the Tri-State Dam in Nebraska near the Wyoming-Nebraska line; (5) Tri-State Dam to the Kingsley Reservoir, west of Keystone, Nebraska; (6) Kingsley Reservoir to Grand Island, Nebraska. [
Irrigation in the river basin began about 1865, when some projects were started in eastern Wyoming and western Nebraska. Between 1880 and 1890, irrigation began on a large scale. Until 1909, storage of water was negligible, irrigation being effected by direct diversions and use. Prior to 1909, the development in Colorado and Wyoming was relatively more rapid than in Nebraska. Since 1910, the acreage under irrigation in Colorado increased about 14 percent, that of Wyoming 31 percent, and that of Nebraska about 100 percent. [
] The large increase in Nebraska is mainly attributable to the use of storage water from the Pathfinder Reservoir. [
irrigation in western Nebraska and, to some extent, in eastern Wyoming. Many irrigation enterprises were closed. After the North Platte Project had been in operation for a while, most of the projects which had been abandoned were reopened. From then until 1931, the supply was reasonably adequate for most of the canals. But the year 1931 started the driest cycle or swing in the North Platte and Platte River valleys of which there is any record. The annual flow at Pathfinder [
] had always fluctuated widely. [
] The average flow for the 37 years commencing in 1904 was 1,315,900 acre feet, the maximum was 2,399,400 in 1917, the minimum was 382,200 in 1934. But a critical condition arose in 1931 with the advent of the dry cycle. The flow for each of the years between 1931 and 1940, as compared with the mean of the flow for the 37-year period ending in 1940, was as follows:
The equitable apportionment which Nebraska seeks is based on the principle of priority of appropriation applied interstate. Colorado and Wyoming have the rule of priority of appropriation, as distinguished from the rule of riparian rights. Colo. Constitution, Art. XVI, Secs. 5, 6;
Farmers' Highline Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Southworth,
13 Colo. 111, 21 P. 1028;
Sternberger v. Seaton Co.,
45 Colo. 401, 102 P. 168; Wyo.Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3; Wyo.Rev.Stat. 1931, §§ 122-401, 122-418, 122-419;
Moyer v. Preston,
6 Wyo. 308, 44 P. 845.
the discussion of the problem in
259 U. S. 459
. Nebraska, on the other hand, was originally a riparian doctrine State.
See Meng v. Coffee,
67 Neb. 500, 93 N.W. 713. But when the more arid sections of the State were settled and the need for irrigation increased, legislation was enacted adopting the appropriation principle.
Neb.L.1889, ch. 68; L.1895, ch. 69. That principle was recognized in the constitution which Nebraska adopted in 1920.
Article XV, Secs. 4, 5, and 6. The adoption of the rule of appropriation did not extinguish riparian rights which had previously vested.
See Clark v. Cambridge & Arapahoe Co.,
45 Neb. 798, 64 N.W. 239;
Crawford Co. v. Hathaway,
60 Neb. 754, 84 N.W. 271, 61 Neb. 317, 85 N.W. 303, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N.W. 781;
Osterman v. Central
Nebraska District,
131 Neb. 356, 268 N.W. 334. But riparian rights may be condemned in favor of appropriators, and violation of riparian rights by appropriators will not be enjoined, only compensation or damages being awarded.
Cline v. Stock,
71 Neb. 70, 98 N.W. 454;
McCook Irrigation & Water Power Co. v. Crews,
70 Neb. 115, 102 N.W. 249. In that sense, riparian rights are considered inferior to rights of appropriators. More important, the rights asserted by Nebraska in this suit are based wholly on appropriations which have been obtained and recognized under Nebraska law. The appropriation system is dominant in the regions of Nebraska which are involved in the present litigation. Hence, we, like the Special Master, treat the case as one involving appropriation rights not only in Colorado and Wyoming, but in Nebraska as well.
There are at present in the North Park area in Colorado (Jackson County) 131,800 acres irrigated. The climate is arid. The sole industry is cattle raising, the only crops being native hay and pasturage. The growing season is short. While the diversions are high per acre (about 4 1/2 acre feet) the return flows are large, making the average consumptive use [
] rate only .74 acre foot per acre. The 131,800 acres of irrigated land consume 98,572 acre feet annually, including reservoir evaporation. Exportations from the basin are expected to average 6,000 acre feet, making the total annual depletion 104,540 acre feet. Though Colorado claimed that an additional 100,000 acres in North Park was susceptible of irrigation, the Special Master found that there are only about 34,000 acres of additional land that could be brought under irrigation; 30,390 of those acres are irrigable from constructed ditch systems having water rights. Those projects, however, are not completed; they are indeed projects for the indefinite future. In addition to these
Colorado Line to Pathfinder Reservoir.
In the region between the Colorado-Wyoming line and Pathfinder, appropriation rights cover about 272,000 acres, 149,400 of which are irrigated. But, of those, only 9,400 acres are irrigated from the main stream, the balance being irrigated from tributaries. The consumptive use rate is about 1 acre foot per acre. Over two-thirds of the volume of diversions (main stream and tributaries) and 88 percent from the main stream are senior to the North Platte Project. They are, in the main, junior to the State Line Canals in Nebraska. Those projects junior to Pathfinder have been operated since 1930 in violation of its priority. The Special Master found that there is no present prospect of any large expansion of irrigation in this area, though five additional projects have been contemplated, some of them being partially constructed. The accretions to the river from tributaries in this section are very large -- about 790,240 acre feet net. Land consumption is 16 percent
The priority of Pathfinder is December 6, 1904, and of Guernsey, April 20, 1923. Between Pathfinder and the Nebraska state line, there are 32 canals on the main river which have priorities senior to Pathfinder. The State Line Canals in Nebraska also are senior to Pathfinder. And Guernsey is junior to all canals below it down to the Nebraska line. The percentage of rights in each section senior and junior to the North Platte Project are as follows:
Kendrick Project.
Seminoe Reservoir has a priority of December 1, 1931; Casper Canal, July 27, 1934 (natural flow); Alcova Reservoir, April 25, 1936. Apart from minor exceptions Seminoe is junior to every appropriator from Alcova to the Tri-State Dam. The project is expected to operate chiefly on storage water. In its early stages, its water requirements will be heavier than they will be later, due to ground absorption and storage. When the project has been in operation a while, the depletion during the irrigation season will be about 122,000 acre feet, except as water stored in nonirrigation season is used. The Special Master found, however, that without violating the Pathfinder priority, the Kendrick project could have stored no water since 1930, and can store none in the future if present conditions continue. He also
Pathfinder to Whalen.
The total land irrigated in this section is in excess of 55,000 acres, of which about 14,000 acres are supplied from the main river. Alfalfa, sugar beets, potatoes, and grains are the principal irrigated crops. There are 60 canals taking out of the main river with priorities ranging from 1887 to 1937. In terms of acreage, about 48 percent of the rights on the river in this section are junior to the North Platte Project. All except one are junior to the Tri-State canal, and most of them are junior to the other Nebraska state line canals. The irrigation projects on the river average not over 160 acres. The consumptive use rate is about 1.1 acre feet per acre. The diversion rate of 2.5 acre feet per acre is deemed adequate. But, during the 1931-1940 period, the average seasonal diversion rate for the section was only 2 acre feet, since, in low stages of flow, some of the ditches are unable to divert any water. But, at the rate of 2.5 acre feet, the total seasonal headgate diversion for the 14,000 acres is 35,000 acre feet, of which 18,200 acre feet would be returned to the river. Of that return, all but 15 percent (2,730 acre feet) would occur during the irrigation season. The tributary inflow is greater than river depletion due to irrigations and other losses. The average annual net gain from 1931-1940 was 64,200 acre feet. During
Whalen to Tri-State Dam.
As we have said, this is the pivotal section of the river around which the central problems of this case turn. Apart from the Kendrick project, the demand for water is as great in this short section of the river as in the entire preceding 415 miles from North Park to Whalen. The lands irrigated from the river in this section total 326,000 acres, as compared with 339,200 acres in the upper valley -- main river and tributaries. The consumptive use on this 326,000 acres far exceeds that of the upper sections combined. We have mentioned the various canals which take out from the river in this section. The Special Master found their annual requirements to be 1,072,514 acre feet. The total net seasonal requirement of all the canals diverting in this section was found to be 1,027,000 acre feet. In the ten-year period from 1931 to 1940, this net seasonal requirement of 1,027,000 acre feet largely exceeded the supply in three years, and was less than the supply in seven years. [
] In those seven years, the seasonal flows passing the Tri-State dam were far less than the excesses, indicating, as the Special Master concluded, that canal diversions in the section were greater than the requirements. He pointed out that, if the diversions during the period had been restricted
On that basis, the average seasonal supply of natural flow available in this section was only 48 percent of the total requirement. In 1933, the year of largest flow, it was only 75 percent. In general, the practice has been to allow storage right canals having early priorities to receive natural flow water on a priority basis, using storage water merely as a supplementary supply. In this area, 90 percent of the lands have both natural flow and storage rights. [
] Seventy-eight percent of the lands having storage
Tri-State Dam to Bridgeport, Neb.
Nebraska originally claimed that any equitable distribution which was made should extend to all irrigated lands as far east as Grand Island, Neb. It is now conceded that the lands east of Bridgeport, Neb., which is some sixty miles from the Wyoming-Nebraska state line, can be reasonably satisfied out of local supplies. Hence, we are not concerned in this case with that section.
As we have noted, Colorado moves to dismiss the proceeding. She asserts that the pleadings and evidence both indicate that she has not injured, nor presently threatens to injure, any downstream water user. She emphasizes the large increase since 1910 in acreage under irrigation in Wyoming and Nebraska, as compared
with the increase in Colorado. She asserts there is a surplus of water in the stream, as evidenced by the fact that, during the recent drought or dry cycle, the Kendrick Project in Wyoming and the Tri-County Project in Nebraska have been constructed, indicating that the sponsors considered that the available water supply was not entirely used by existing projects. And she emphasizes that, during the drought, there was a divertible flow passing Tri-State Dam during the irrigation season. The argument is that the case is not of such serious magnitude, and the damage is not so fully and clearly proved, as to warrant the intervention of this Court under our established practice.
-394. The argument is that the potential threat of injury, representing as it does only a possibility for the indefinite future, is no basis for a decree in an interstate suit, since we cannot issue declaratory decrees.
-464, and cases cited.
The evidence supports the finding of the Special Master that the dependable natural flow of the river during the irrigation season has long been over-appropriated. A genuine controversy exists. The States have not been able to settle their differences by compact. The areas involved are arid or semi-arid. Water in dependable amounts is essential to the maintenance of the vast agricultural enterprises established on the various sections of the river. The dry cycle which has continued over a decade has precipitated a clash of interests which, between sovereign powers, could be traditionally settled only by diplomacy or war. The original jurisdiction of this Court is one of the alternative methods provided by the Framers of our Constitution.
What we have, then, is a situation where three States assert against a river whose dependable natural flow during the irrigation season has long been over appropriated claims based not only on present uses, but on projected additional uses as well. The various statistics with which the record abounds are inconclusive in showing the existence or extent of actual damage to Nebraska. But we know that deprivation of water in arid or semiarid regions cannot help but be injurious. That was the basis for the apportionment of water made by the Court in
There, the only showing of injury or threat of injury was the inadequacy of the supply of water to meet all appropriative rights. As much if not more is shown here. If this were an equity suit to enjoin threatened injury, the showing made by Nebraska might possibly be insufficient. But
indicates that, where the claims to the water of a river exceed the supply, a controversy exists appropriate for judicial determination. If there were a surplus of unappropriated water, different considerations would be applicable.
. But where there is not enough water in the river to satisfy the claims asserted against it, the situation is not basically different from that where two or more persons claim the right to the same parcel of land. The present claimants being States, we think the clash of interests to be of that character and dignity which makes the controversy a justiciable one under our original jurisdiction.
Colorado v. Kansas, supra,
is not opposed to this view. That case turned on its special facts. It is true that an apportionment of the water of an interstate river was denied in that case. But the downstream State (Kansas) did not sustain the burden of showing that, since the earlier litigation between the States (
), there had been a material increase in the depletion of the river by Colorado. Improvements based upon irrigation had been made by Colorado while Kansas stood by for over twenty years without protest. We held that, in those circumstances, a plain showing was necessary of increased depletion and substantial injury to warrant a decree which would disrupt the economy of the upstream State built around irrigation. Moreover, we made clear (320 U.S. p.
, note 2) that we were not dealing there with a case like
where the doctrine of appropriation applied in each of the States which were parties to the suit and where there was not sufficient water to meet all the present and prospective needs.
Claim of United States to Unappropriated Water.
The United States claims that it owns all the unappropriated water in the river. It argues, that it owned the then unappropriated water at the time it acquired water rights by appropriation for the North Platte Project and the Kendrick Project. Its basic rights are therefore said to derive not from appropriation, but from its underlying ownership, which entitles it to an apportionment in this suit free from state control. The argument is that the United States acquired the original ownership of all rights in the water, as well as the lands in the North Platte basin, by cessions from France, Spain, and Mexico in 1803, 1819, and 1848, and by agreement with Texas in 1850. It says it still owns those rights in water to whatever extent it has not disposed of them. An extensive review of federal water legislation applicable to the Platte River basin is made beginning with the Act of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 251, the Act of July 9, 1870, 16 Stat. 217, and including the Desert Land Law (Act of March 3, 1877, 19 Stat. 377)
The Desert Land Act "effected a severance of all waters upon the public domain, not theretofore appropriated, from the land itself."
California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.,
295 U. S. 158
. It extended the right of appropriation to any declarant who reclaimed desert land, and provided:
See Ickes v. Fox,
300 U. S. 95
300 U. S. 367
"That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and
the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws,
and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters
Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.
pattern of state law as provided in the Reclamation Act. We can say here what was said in
300 U. S. 94
"Although the government diverted, stored, and distributed the water, the contention of petitioner that thereby ownership of the water or water rights became vested in the United States is not well founded. Appropriation was made not for the use of the government, but, under the Reclamation Act, for the use of the landowners, and, by the terms of the law and of the contract already referred to, the water rights became the property of the landowners, wholly distinct from the property right of the government in the irrigation works.
Compare Murphy v. Kerr,
296 F. 536, 544, 545 . The government was and remained simply a carrier and distributor of the water (
), with the right to receive the sums stipulated in the contracts as reimbursement for the cost of construction and annual charges for operation and maintenance of the works."
The property right in the water right is separate and distinct from the property right in the reservoirs, ditches or canals. The water right is appurtenant to the land, the owner of which is the appropriator. The water right is acquired by perfecting an appropriation --
by an actual diversion followed by an application within a reasonable time of the water to a beneficial use.
See Murphy v. Kerr,
296 F. 536, 542, 544, 545;
Commonwealth Power Co. v. State Board,
94 Neb. 613, 143 N.W. 937;
Kersenbrock v. Boyes,
95 Neb. 407, 145 N.W. 837. Indeed, § 8 of the Reclamation Act provides, as we have seen, that
compliance with that direction. Pursuant to that procedure, individual landowners have become the appropriators of the water rights, the United States being the storer and the carrier. [
] We intimate no opinion whether a different procedure might have been followed so as to appropriate and reserve to the United States all of these water rights. No such attempt was made. Though we assume
that the United States did own all of the unappropriated water, the appropriations under state law were made to the individual landowners pursuant to the procedure which Congress provided in the Reclamation Act. The right so acquired are as definite and complete as if they were obtained by direct cession from the federal government. Thus, even if we assume that the United States owned the unappropriated rights, they were acquired by the landowners in the precise manner contemplated by Congress.
landowners. To allocate those water rights to the United States would be to disregard the rights of the landowners. To allocate them to the States, who represent their citizens
in this proceeding, [
] in no wise interferes with the ownership and operation by the United States of its storage and power plants, works, and facilities. Thus, the question of the ownership by the United States of unappropriated water is largely academic so far as the narrow issues of this case are concerned.
There is some suggestion that, if we undertake an apportionment of the waters of this interstate river, we embark upon an enterprise involving administrative functions beyond our province. We noted in
, that these controversies between States over the waters of interstate streams
"involve the interests of
-sovereigns, present complicated and delicate questions, and, due to the possibility of future change of conditions, necessitate expert administration, rather than judicial imposition of a hard and fast rule. Such controversies may appropriately be composed by negotiation and agreement pursuant to the compact clause of the Federal constitution. We say of this case, as the Court has said of interstate differences of like nature, that such mutual accommodation and agreement should, if possible, be the medium of settlement, instead of invocation of our adjudicatory power."
considerations did not prevail in
where an apportionment of the waters of an interstate stream was made. Nor did they prevail in the drainage canal cases.
U.S. 107, 313 U.S. 547.
And see Sanitary District v. United States,
. We do not believe they should prevail here.
We recognize the difficulties of the problem. The matter is a delicate one, and extremely complex. To begin with, we are confronted with the problem of equitable apportionment. The Special Master recommended a decree based on that principle. That was indeed the principle adopted by the Court in
where an apportionment of the waters of an interstate stream was made between two States, each of which had the rule of appropriation. In speaking of that rule in application to a controversy between States, the Court, through Mr. Justice Van Devanter, said:
259 U.S. p.
259 U. S. 470
. Since Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska are appropriation States, that principle would seem to be equally applicable here.
That does not mean that there must be a literal application of the priority rule. We stated in
that, in determining whether one State is
. That case did not involve a controversy between two appropriation States. But if an allocation between appropriation States is to be just and equitable, strict adherence to the priority rule may not be possible. For example, the economy of a region may have been established on the basis of junior appropriations. So far as possible, those established uses should be protected though strict application of the priority rule might jeopardize them. Apportionment calls for the exercise of an informed judgment on a consideration of many factors. Priority of appropriation is the guiding principle. But physical and climatic conditions, the consumptive use of water in the several sections of the river, the character and rate of return flows, the extent of established uses, the availability of storage water, the practical effect of wasteful uses on downstream areas, the damage to upstream areas as compared to the benefits to downstream areas if a limitation is imposed on the former -- these are all relevant factors. They are merely an illustrative, not an exhaustive, catalogue. They indicate the nature of the problem of apportionment and the delicate adjustment of interests which must be made.
Nebraska, however, urges that, priority of appropriation interstate be adopted from the Alcova Reservoir east, and, more particularly, from the Whalen diversion dam east. She points out that there is a large acreage of Nebraska land which is irrigated by canals diverting at Whalen. There are four canals diverting in Wyoming and irrigating land entirely or in part in Nebraska -- Mitchell, Interstate, Ft. Laramie, and French. For example, the diversion point for Mitchell is in Wyoming, though all the land it serves is in Nebraska. Nebraska has maintained that diversions of that canal should be regulated to observe the priorities of senior Nebraska canals, including Tri-State. Wyoming was willing to regulate her upstream junior appropriators for the benefit of Mitchell provided the water go to Mitchell, and not be used for Tri-State, which is senior to both Mitchell and certain Wyoming appropriators. [
] Nebraska therefore urges an interstate allocation which would require junior appropriators in Wyming
The decree recommended by the Special Master departs from the theory of allocation advanced by the parties. In recommending his apportionment, the Special Master did not rest on the long-time average flow of the river. We have discussed the drought which has persisted in this river basin since 1930. No one knows whether it has run its course, or whether it represents a new norm. There is no reliable basis for prediction. But a controversy exists, and the decree which is entered must deal with conditions as they obtain today. If they substantially change, the decree can be adjusted to meet the new conditions. But the decree which is fashioned must be based, as the special master recognized, on the dependable flow.
In that case, the Court pointed out that the average of all years was far from being a proper measure of the available supply.
259 U. S. 476
. On this record,
As we have noted, there are presently under irrigation in this section of the river 131,800 acres which consume (including reservoir evaporation) 98,540 acre feet annually. Exportations from the basin amount on the average to 6,000 acre feet, making the total annual depletion 104,540 acre feet. There are, as we have seen, additional demands made by Colorado for future projects. The Special Master recommended that Colorado be enjoined (a) from the diversion of water for the irrigation in North Park of more than 135,000 acres of land, (b) from the accumulation in storage facilities in North Park of more than 17,000 acre feet between October 1 of any year and September 30 of the following year, and (c) from the trans-basin diversion out of North Park of more than 6,000 acre feet between October 1 of any year and September 30 of the following year. Colorado excepts to these proposals. But, with minor exceptions which we will note, we do not believe those exceptions are well taken.
We are satisfied that a reduction in present Colorado uses is not warranted. The fact that the same amount of water might produce more in lower sections of the river is immaterial.
. The established economy in Colorado's section of the river basin based on existing use of the water should be protected. [
Cf. Colorado v. Kansas, supra,
. Appropriators in Colorado junior to Pathfinder have made out-of-priority
diversions of substantial amounts. Strict application of the priority rule might well result in placing a limitation on Colorado's present use for the benefit of Pathfinder. But, as we have said, priority of appropriation, while the guiding principle for an apportionment, is not a hard and fast rule. Colorado's countervailing equities indicate it should not be strictly adhered to in this situation. Colorado asserts, however, that the limitation of trans-basin diversions to 6,000 acre feet a year should not be imposed. Her point is that 6,000 acre feet represent merely the average annual trans-basin diversions, that annual diversions have exceeded that amount, and that a limitation of 6,000 acre feet annually will interfere with existing Colorado users. We think the point is well taken. The decree will enjoin Colorado exportations in excess of an average of 6,000 acre fee computed over a period of ten years. [
Colorado State Line to Pathfinder and Guernsey.
The Special Master recommends that Wyoming be enjoined (a) from diverting water from the main river above Guernsey and from its tributaries above Pathfinder for the irrigation of more than 168,000 acres, and (b) from the accumulation of storage water in reservoirs above Pathfinder in excess of 18,000 acre feet between October
flows into the main river available for storage in the Guernsey, Lake Alice, and Lake Minatare reservoirs of the North Platte Project. We do not know from the present record the precise extent of existing reservoir storage in this area. We do know, however, that there is some storage capacity --
20,000 acre feet in the La Prele Project. In absence of evidence showing what contribution these tributaries now make to the supply of the reservoirs or what additional storage projects may be possible or what their effect might be, the Special Master concluded there was an insufficient basis for any present limitation on storage. We find no evidence of any present threat to the water supply from this source. If such threat appears and it promises to disturb the delicate balance of the river, application may be made at the foot of the decree for an appropriate restriction.
Pathfinder, Guernsey, Seminoe and Alcova Reservoirs and the Casper Canal.
The Special Master recommends that Wyoming be enjoined from the storage of water in these four reservoirs and from the diversion of natural flow water through the Casper Canal for the Kendrick Project, between and including May 1 and September 30 of each year otherwise than in accordance with the rule of priority in relation to the appropriations of the Nebraska lands supplied by the French Canal and by the State Line Canals; that all those Nebraska appropriations for that purpose be adjudged senior to those four reservoirs and to Casper Canal, and that the senior Nebraska appropriations be identified and defined as follows:
Lands Canal in Second Limitation
Feet in Acre Feet
storage capacity of the North Platte and Kendrick projects is equal to 175 percent of the long-time annual average river run-off of the river at Pathfinder. We have here storage capacity in excess of the practicable limits of a dependable supply as that term has hitherto been construed.
A mass allocation was made in
Wyoming v. Colorado.
But there is no hard and fast rule which requires it in all cases. The standard of an equitable apportionment requires an adaptation of the formula to the necessities of the particular situation. We may assume that the rights of the appropriators
may not be adjudicated in their absence. But any allocation between Wyoming and Nebraska, if it is to be fair and just, must reflect the priorities of appropriators in the two States. Unless the priorities of the downstream canals senior to the four reservoirs and Casper Canal are determined, no allocation is possible. The determination of those priorities for the limited purposes of this interstate apportionment is accordingly justified. The equitable share of a State may be determined in this litigation with such limitations as the equity of the situation requires, and irrespective of the indirect effect which that determination may have on individual rights within the State.
Nebraska contends that the allotment to Farmers Irrigation District be increased in the seasonal limitation recommended, so that the Warren Act contract which it has may be recognized. But, for reasons which we will elaborate, the only water subject to the present allocation is natural flow. Contracts requiring the supplementation of natural flow by storage are unaffected. [
The United States asserts that it should be given a separate allocation of water even if it is not treated as the owner of unappropriated water, and hence the possessor of an unbroken chain of title to project water. The Special Master concluded that the position of the United States or the Secretary of the Interior is that of an appropriator of water for storage under the laws of Wyoming, and that its interests are represented in that connection by Wyoming. That was in line with the ruling of this Court when Wyoming moved to dismiss this very case on the ground, among others, that the Secretary of the Interior was a necessary party.
control over its disposition and use under Wyoming law. That seems to be true under Wyoming law. Wyo.Rev.Stats. (1931) §§ 122-1601, 122-1602;
Scherck v. Nichols,
55 Wyo. 4, 19, 95 P.2d 74. The decree which is entered will in no way cloud such claim as it has to storage water under Wyoming law, nor will the decree interfere with the ownership and operation by the United States of the various federal storage and power plants, works, and facilities. We repeat that the decree is restricted to an apportionment of the natural flow.
Nebraska recognizes the desirability of that course. She contends, however, that, where the outflow is equal to or less than the intake, none of the released water can be considered as storage water. And she says that, when the water being released is greater than the inflow, that portion which represents the amount of natural flow being taken in at the intakes cannot be considered as storage.
See Gila Valley Irr. Dist. v. United States,
118 F.2d
For reasons which will be more fully discussed, we think that storage water should be left for distribution in accordance with the contracts which govern it. Accordingly, we think it is advisable to define storage water in the manner proposed by the United States, so as to make the operation of the decree more certain and to adjust it to the storage water contracts which are outstanding. Storage water therefore is defined, for purposes of this decree, as any water which is released from reservoirs for use on lands under canals having storage contracts in addition to the water which is discharged through those reservoirs to meet the requirements of any canal as recognized in the decree. This definition does not adversely affect rights recognized in the decree. It is perhaps a departure from the ordinary meaning of storage. But, so long as the Warren Act contracts are outstanding, that definition is necessary in order to give them effectiveness. For they do not provide that the United States will furnish water in such amounts as may from time to time be available. The United States agrees to deliver water which will, with all the water to which the land is entitled by appropriation or otherwise, aggregate a stated amount. [
Pathfinder, Guernsey, Seminoe and Alcova Reservoirs.
The Special Master recommends that Wyoming be enjoined to respect the rule of priority of these reservoirs in respect to each other, and that the order of seniority as between them be defined as follows: (1) Pathfinder, (2) Guernsey, (3) Seminoe, and (4) Alcova. He recommends, however, that water be allowed to be impounded in Seminoe "out of priority" in relation to Pathfinder and Guernsey for such use only in the generation of power by the Seminoe hydroelectric power plant as will not materially interfere with the administration of the water for irrigation purposes according to the priority as decreed for the French Canal and the State Line Canals.
The Interstate, Ft. Laramie, and Northport canals are, as we have noted, part of the North Platte Project. The Kendrick Project is subordinate to the North Platte Project. The Special Master concluded that proper regulation for Kendrick would be one requiring the observance of priorities, Alcova to Tri-State Dam, both in the storage of water in Seminoe and Alcova and in the diversion of natural flow by the Casper Canal. The record supports that conclusion. Nebraska accordingly urges that the Interstate, Ft. Laramie, and Northport canals receive the same protection from Kendrick as the French Canal and the State Line Canals. If there were doubt that Interstate, Ft. Laramie, and Northport would receive priority in treatment, the decree could be fashioned so as to provide for it. But the matter is covered by contract between the United States and the Casper-Alcova Irrigation District. That contract, which the United States fully recognizes, precludes operation of the Kendrick Project except in recognition of prior rights in the North Platte Project. [
] We therefore do not think it is necessary to include in the decree the additional provision which Nebraska suggests.
Return Flow of Kendrick Project.
The Special Master recommends that Wyoming be enjoined (1) from the recapture of return flow water of the Kendrick Project after
We will consider first the return flow from natural drainage.
Ide v. United States,
, held that
the United States might recapture water which resulted from seepage from irrigated lands under a reclamation project and which was not susceptible of private appropriation under Wyoming law. The same conclusion was reached in
United States v. Tilley,
124 F.2d 850, where the United States was held to be entitled to use and apply the seepage from one division of the North Platte Project to supply lands of another division as against the claim of Nebraska of a right to intercept the seepage and apply it to appropriators senior to the project.
And see Ramshorn Ditch Co. v. United States,
269 F. 80.
Cf. United States v. Warmsprings Irrigation Dist.,
38 F.Supp. 239. In the
in properly cultivating his land. Beyond this, all rights incident to the appropriation are retained by the plaintiff. Its right in the seepage is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the opinion of District Judge Dietrick in
276 F. 41, 43:"
263 U.S. pp.
not in accord with the principle underlying the
case. That principle is that, although the water rights belong to the landowners, the owner of the irrigation project has an interest in the appropriative rights to the extent of obtaining the fullest use of the water for the project. It may therefore retain control over the water until abandonment. We think it goes too far to say that, when the return flows are abandoned, they may nevertheless be exchanged for upstream diversions by the same amount. When the return flows are abandoned, they become subject to appropriation downstream.
2 Kinney, Irrigation and Water Rights (2d Ed.1912) § 1114. They no longer remain subject to control for further use in the project. Any claim to them or their equivalent under the form of an "in lieu of" diversion is lost.
When it comes, however, to return flows resulting from drainage facilities installed by the United States, different considerations may be applicable. But for the drainage through artificial channels furnished by the United States, the unused water would never return to the river. The United States could rightfully leave the water in the sumps. In that case, no one would ever have the use of it. It is argued that, since, by artificial drainage, the United States adds to the natural flow below Kendrick, it is only fair to allow Kendrick whatever benefit may result from that contribution.
Cf. Reno v. Richards,
32 Idaho 1, 178 P. 81. One difficulty is that the drainage system has not been completed, Kendrick has not been put into operation, and we do not know what the contribution by artificial drainage will be. Accordingly, we do not at this time consider the claim on the merits. When Kendrick has been put into operation and there is a full development of return flows, application may be made for revision of the decree to permit "in lieu of" diversions at or above Alcova.
As we have said, this is the critical section of the river. The main controversy centers
around it and around the Special Master's proposal for dealing with it. He proposes that the natural flow water in this section between May 1 and September 30 each year be apportioned on the basis of 25 percent to Wyoming and 75 percent to Nebraska. He recommends that Nebraska be given the right to designate from time to time the portion of its share which shall be delivered to the Interstate, Ft. Laramie, French, and Mitchell Canals for use on Nebraska lands served by them, and that Wyoming be enjoined from diversions contrary to this apportionment. [
Wyoming earnestly contends that storage water, as well as natural flow, should be included in the apportionment which is made for this section of the river. She points out that, in
the Court made an apportionment based upon a supply "which is fairly constant and dependable, or is susceptible of being made so by storage and conservation within practicable limits." 259 U.S. p.
259 U. S. 480
. She argues that the Court has the power to allocate storage water though its disposition is controlled by contracts between the United States and irrigation districts, and that an apportionment which excludes storage water is unfair. The argument is that each State should be restricted to the use of such supplies only as the necessary to provide their respective irrigators, including
The Special Master concluded that, since the North Platte Project storage water was disposed of under contracts between the United States and landowners under the project and under the Warren Act contracts, the obligations of those contracts and the necessity of performance under them must be recognized by the decree. He concluded, however, that, in the allocation of the natural flow ,the storage water available might bear upon the equities of the States, although it would have no relevancy to the legal rights of individual appropriators
under the law of either Wyoming or Nebraska. We think the equities of the case support the failure to include storage water in the apportionment. We do not reach the question whether the presence of the storage water contracts would preclude an apportionment of storage water. The nine Wyoming private canals and the Mitchell and Ramshorn canals have no contract rights to receive storage water from the federal reservoirs. It is difficult for us to see how it would be equitable to make an apportionment on the basis that they do. In certain years in the past, there have been excessive diversions by canals in this section, including the nine Wyoming private canals. We cannot assume that an apportionment of storage water is necessary to prevent a recurrence of those practices. Certainly an apportionment of storage water would disrupt the system of water administration, which has become established pursuant to mandate of Congress in § 8 of the Reclamation Act, that the Secretary of the Interior, in the construction of these federal projects, should proceed in conformity with state law. In pursuance thereto,
all of the storage water is disposed of under contracts with project users and Warren Act canals. It appears that, under that system of administration of storage water, no State and no water users within a State are entitled to the use of storage facilities or storage water unless they contract for the use.
Wyo.Rev.Stats. (1931), §§ 122-1504, 122-1508, 122-1602. If storage water is not segregated, storage water contractors, in times of shortage of the total supply, will be deprived of the use of a part of the storage supply for which they pay. If storage water is not segregated, those who have not contracted for the storage supply will receive, at the expense of those who have contracted for it, a substantial increment to the natural flow supply which, as we have seen, has been insufficient to go around. In
the Court did not apportion storage water. It apportioned natural flow only. It took into account when it made that apportionment the effects of storage in equalizing natural flow in Wyoming. We think no more should be done here to effect an equitable apportionment.
Wyoming argues for a mass allocation,
705,000 acre feet to be allocated to Nebraska for diversion in this section during the irrigation season for Nebraska lands. The Special Master rejected that method. He concluded that it was based on an assumption of dependability of flow which would be bound to result in injustice to one or other of the States; that it apportioned not only natural flow, but also storage water, the disposition of which is governed by contracts. We have already considered Wyoming's exception that storage water should have been included in the allocation. We have also considered the other phases of her argument in favor of mass allocation. We repeat that the inadequacy of the supply is too clear to permit adoption of Wyoming's formula.
The United States and Nebraska, however, press on us a second alternative in lieu of the 25-75 percentage basis recommended by the Special Master. They suggest that a schedule of varying flows of the stream be adopted. Under that theory, there would be an allocation on a priority basis to each of the seven "blocks" of second feet up to and including 1,526 second feet. All above 1,526 second feet would be apportioned on a percentage basis,
28 percent to Wyoming and 72 percent to Nebraska.
served by two canals which have exercised their appropriative rights without interference for over 50 years. Furthermore, the great increase in return flows from the North Platte Project, which we discussed earlier, are relevant here. Those return flows are a "windfall" to irrigators who are so situated on the river as to use them, yet who do not have storage rights and who share no part of storage costs. As we have seen, these return flows are substantial, and should be taken into account in balancing the equities between Wyoming and Nebraska in this section of the river. Moreover, the storage water rights of the lands included in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the foregoing table bear upon this problem. Eighty-two percent of that Nebraska acreage has storage water rights under Warren Act contracts; 7 percent of that Wyoming acreage has storage water rights. When groups 1 to 7 are considered, 82 percent of the Nebraska acreage and 47 percent of the Wyoming acreage have storage water rights under Warren Act contracts. The Mitchell and Ramshorn Canals are the only Nebraska canals in the 7 groups which have no storage water rights. As we have said, storage water, though not apportioned, may be taken into account in determining each State's equitable share of the natural flow.
Our problem is not to determine what allocation would be equitable among the canals in Nebraska or among those in Wyoming. That is a problem of internal administration for each of the States. Our problem involves only an appraisal of the equities between the claimants whom Wyoming represents, on the one hand, and those represented by Nebraska, on the other. We conclude that the early Wyoming uses, the return flows, and the greater storage water rights which Nebraska appropriators have in this section as compared with those of Wyoming appropriators tip the scales in favor of the flat percentage system recommended by the Special Master. It should be noted, moreover, that that method of apportionment, though not strictly adhering
Wyoming's contention that, in determining the requirements of the canals in this section, Ramshorn should not have been allotted 3,000 acre feet per annum presents different problems. Ramshorn receives its supply through Tri-State. The Special Master, in computing the requirements of Tri-State, deducted the return flows below the Tri-State Dam which were intercepted and utilized by the canal. [
] But there apparently was not deducted the accretions from Spring Creek, a tributary which flows into the river below the Wyoming-Nebraska line and above Tri-State Dam. [
] The average run-off of Spring Creek from May to September during the 1932-1940 period appears to have been 2,855 acre feet. We agree that this accretion should be taken into account in computing Nebraska's requirement of water from Wyoming.
The Special Master found that the priorities of the canals in this section, the acres served, the requirements in section feet (one second foot for each 70 acres), and the acre feet requirement
ason were as follows:
1. The value for Tri-State assumes that the historical interceptions (35,500 acre feet annually) by this canal below the state line will in the future be delivered to the Northport District, in compliance with the decree in
124 F.2d 850.
3. This canal supplies a total of 13,000 acres, but 8,452 acres will be supplied in the future by interception below state line.
As, we have noted, [
] the Special Master recomments that, for this part of the decree, segregation of natural flow and storage water be determined in accordance with the formula and data appearing in U.S. Exhibit 204A unless and until Nebraska, Wyoming and the United States agree upon a modification or upon another formula. Wyoming contends that it is impossible to determine what is natural flow and what is storage water in the Whalen-Tri-State Dam section of the river from day to day. The problem is a perplexing one. Physical segregation is, of course, impossible. But, on the basis of the record, we think that it is feasible to determine what portion of the flow at a given point is storage water and what portion is natural flow. Precision is concededly impossible. But approximations are possible, and they are sufficient for the administration of the river under the decree. It is true, as Wyoming says, that, in order to segregate storage water and natural flow, losses by evaporation must be determined, and, since those losses vary from section to section, the number of days required for the water to travel from one point to another must be known. The time required for water to travel from Alcova to Nebraska varies under different conditions. As an expert of the Bureau of
But, while the adjustment is an arbitrary one, corrections can be made and are made, so that, over a short period of days, the segregation is balanced. [
Gauging Stations and Measuring Devices.
The Special Master recommends that such additional gauging stations and measuring devices at or near the Wyoming-Nebraska state line be installed as are necessary for effecting the apportionment in the Whalen-Tri-State Dam section of the river, and that they be constructed and maintained at the joint and equal expense of Nebraska and Wyoming. The parties take no exception to this recommendation, and it will be adopted.
The Special Master excluded this section of the river from the apportionment on the grounds that its canals are adequately supplied from return flows and other local sources. Nebraska takes exception to that exclusion. She points out that, of the 12 canals in this section which bear on our problem, two have Warren Act contracts. Nine are senior to all Wyoming appropriations except the first 103 second feet for the oldest appropriators; only about 200 second feet of Wyoming appropriations are senior to these Nebraska appropriations. Nebraska says that four of these canals had insufficient supplies during the three dry years of 1934, 1936, and 1940. And she points out that, during the same periods, the nine Wyoming canals, serving substantially the same kinds of areas, had excessive diversions. But it appears that other Nebraska canals in the section had excessive diversions during the same years. And the record supports the conclusion of the Special Master that seasonal supplies are adequate. He explained the shortages as due (1) to lack of coincidence between the time
The Special Master recommends that the decree permit any of the parties to apply at the foot of the decree for its amendment or for further relief, and that the Court retain jurisdiction of the suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the decree or any supplementary decree that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy. Colorado and Wyoming object to this provision. Colorado's objection that this provision places administrative burdens on the Court which we should not assume has been sufficiently answered. Wyoming's objection is, in the main, that a complete equitable apportionment should be made, leaving open for future consideration only the question of additional development above Whalen in Wyoming and Colorado. But our rejection of the proposal for a mass allocation disposes of this objection. And we do not think it appropriate to bar, as Wyoming suggests, applications for modifications within a period of ten years, or, alternately, five years, from entry of the decree.
Ordinary and Usual Domestic and Municipal Purposes.
The Special Master reports that the parties are agreed that there should be no restriction upon the diversion from the North Platte River in Colorado or Wyoming of water for ordinary and usual domestic and municipal purposes and consumption, and that nothing in the recommended decree is intended to or will interfere with such diversions and uses. Wyoming suggests that that provision cover not only diversions from the North Platte River in Colorado and Wyoming, but also diversion from its tributaries in those States, and that stock watering purposes be excepted as well as ordinary and usual domestic and municipal purposes. We think those suggestions are appropriate ones. They will be adopted.
Records of Irrigation and Storage.
The decree, as has been seen, will limit Wyoming and Colorado to the irrigation of stated acreages above Pathfinder and to storage of more than stated amounts of water in that region. The United States insists that the decree should also require Wyoming and Colorado to maintain complete and accurate records of irrigation and storage of water in those areas, and to keep them available. Wyoming says that is an unnecessary provision. Colorado says that its officials already have such duties. But the record in this case reflects the need for complete and accurate records. And it seems to us desirable that such records be kept. Otherwise, neither the States nor the other interested parties can know if the acreage and storage limitations are being met. Continuous records will simplify the program of administration. The proposal is adopted.
Importation of Water.
The decree which we enter apportions only the natural flow of the North Platte River. The United States suggests that the decree explicitly state that it does not cover any additional supply of water which may be imported into this basin from the watershed of an entirely separate stream and which presently does not
The waters of the South Platte and the Laramie were previously apportioned -- the former between Colorado and Nebraska by compact (44 Stat. 195), the latter between Colorado and Wyoming by decree.
. Those apportionments are in no way affected by the decree in this case.
Year Acre Feet Year Acre Feet Year Acre Feet
The right of the United States as storer and carrier is not necessarily exhausted when it delivers the water to grantees under its irrigation projects. Thus, in
, the right of the United States was held to extend to water which resulted from seepage from the irrigated lands under its project and which was not susceptible of private appropriation under local law.
That controversy between the States is partly reflected in
State v. Mitchell Irrigation District,
129 Neb. 586, 262 N.W. 543, and
Mitchell Irrigation District v. Whiting,
59 Wyo. 52, 136 P.2d 502.
Whether, as between the United States, together with the irrigation projects sponsored by it, on the one hand, and the Farmers Irrigation District, on the other, the United States is estopped by
124 F.2d 850, to deny the amount of acreage covered by the Warren Act contract with the district is not relevant here.
I am unable to agree with the court's disposition of this case. I think the decision constitutes a departure from principles long established and observed by the court in litigations between the states of the Union, and adopts a course diametrically opposed to our most recent adjudication in the field of interstate waters. [
] Without proof of actual damage in the past, or of any threat of substantial damage in the near future, the court now undertakes to assume jurisdiction over three
-sovereign states and to supervise, for all time, their respective uses of an interstate stream on the basis of past use, including, over a ten year term, the greatest drought in the history of the region, admitting, in effect, that its allocation of privileges to the respective states will have to be revised and modified when that drought ceases and more water becomes available for beneficial use. I doubt if, in such interstate controversies, any state is ever entitled to a declaratory judgment from this court. I am sure that, on the showing in the present record, none of the states is entitled to a declaration
"A prohibition against further expansion of irrigation in North Park seems to me recommended by consideration of (a) the insufficiency of the present supply, at best, to more than satisfy the requirements of presently established uses, (b) the principle laid down in
Colorado v. WyoMing,
(c) the consonance of such limitation with the general plan of apportionment being recommended herein. At the same time to impose a permanently fixed restriction against further irrigation development in North Park would not appear justified in view of the possibility of such future increase in supply as to render it unnecessary.
In the proposed decree, he would enjoin Colorado in accordance with this recommendation although, confessedly, Colorado is not diverting, or contemplating diversion of, the waters in question. A more gratuitous interference with a
-sovereign State I cannot imagine. It would disregard all that we have repeatedly said to the effect that a state should not be enjoined by this Court at the suit of a sister state unless she is inflicting, or threatening immediately to inflict, grave and substantial damage upon the complainant. I cannot imagine that, as between private parties, an injunction would go against one who is not doing, or immediately threatening to do, harm to the complainant. The court is simply taking Colorado under its wing, and proposes to act as guardian of the State in respect to the waters of the North Platte within her borders.
This court stated, in
"It is, of course, obvious in general, and without any detailed proof, that, in an arid or semi-arid country, deprivation of water for irrigation in time of need cannot be otherwise than injurious to the area deprived. The weakness, if such there be, in Nebraska's proof is uncertainty as to the
of any invasion of her equitable share except as measured by diversions 'out of priority' and uncertainty as to the
of her injury consequent upon the alleged violation of her equitable rights, except as measured by the dollar value assigned to the water lost to her through such diversions. If, to sustain her burden of proof, Nebraska must establish not only violations of
As respects both defendants, the decree makes a provisions adjustment based upon drought conditions, with the understanding that, if conditions change by reason of events not now envisaged, the defendants may again come to this court for another provisional arrangement which shall stand until some party to the decree thinks that a further revision should be made. Thus, three states, with respect to their
-sovereign rights, will be in tutelage to this court henceforth.
and Colorado came here twice at the instance of Kansas, in a dispute over the flow of the Arkansas River. [
] In a case presenting, on the whole, less difficulty than the present one, this court entered a decree June 5, 1922, [
] only to find it necessary to revise it on October 9, 1922. [
] But the controversy would not down. The parties came back here on three occasions because of misunderstandings and disagreements with respect to the effect of our decree. [
The controversy with respect to the diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan seemed to require a decree conditioned upon, and containing provisions with respect to, future conduct. The difficulty of administering that decree is evidenced by the repeated appearance of the parties in this court. [
S. 494;
U.S. 573;
U.S. 572.
U.S. 179;
U.S. 569; 311 U.S.
311 U. S. 107
; 313 U.S. 547
Reservoir Evaporation Losses
Semminoe, Pathfinder and Alcova Reservoirs
River Carriage Losses
"(a) The relative rights oĹ water users within any one of the States who are parties to this suit except as may be otherwise specifically provided herein;"