| OCR Text |
Show from taking wator for such purposes when the water is needed by senior Nebraska appropriators . (3) "To prevent Wyoming from allocating to a new irrigation project^, known as the Casper-AIcova Project, a 1904 priority ^ when, as Nebraska claims, it is only entitled to a 1934 priority, and many Nebraska pro- jects of l904 priority and later would be deprived of water in the ad- ministration of the stream with a 1904 priority of the Casper-AIcova Project. (4) "As an incident to said direct relief * and in order to provide an exact basis for a decree covering the administration of the stream in the future to fix and determine tho respective priorities on the stream of Nebraska and Wyoming appropriators*" In its demurrer and motion to dismiss, Wyoming claimed that Colorado, and the Secretary of the Interior, because of the North Platte Federal Re- clamation Project, are necessary parties to this action* The State of Nebraska, in its answer to Wyoming*s motion, asserted that since no relief is asked by complainant against the State of Colorado, and since the State of Colorado has no interest in the relief asked, against the State of Wyoming, or in the controversy between the State of Nebraska and the State of Wyoming* the State of Colorado is not a necessary party to the action because the States of Nebraska and Wyoming represent the interests of their respective water users under the Federal Reclamation Project; but upon Wyoming's amended complaint, the Court required that Colorado be made a party to tho suit* On May l\$ 193&> Colorado filed its answer and cross bill in which issue was taken with the claims of both Nebraska and Wyoming, and in which Colorado establishes its own claims to an equitable division of the waters of* the North Platte River. The fundamental contentions with respect to the ownership and use of the waters of this interstate stream are as follows? Nebraska contends tiiat priority of appropriation shall prevail regard- less of S-fcate lines. Wyoming contends that such a doctrine in the present case, due to the peculiarities of the rivera would inevitably result in an univarranted and wasteful use of the water supplies of the river, while Colorado bases its contentions upon "equitable apportionment" betv^en the three Sta-fces, regardless of priority, of appropriation or riparian rights*. The Court appointed a liaster to hear testimony* which began in tho Summer of 1936* Nebraska submitted voluminous testimony, vtiich has been subjected fco cross-examinationo It is now (1939) anticipated that several years wil£ elapse before Colorado and Wyoming have concluded their testi- mony and the case is presented to the Court for final determination. JPeder-a.1 Intervention in Nebraska vs» Wyoming and Colorado, North Platte River Intestate Suit. «-¦ On June 15, 1938, the Department of Justice filed its patiti on for intervention in the pending interstate river suit in the ^.se of Nebraska vs« Wyoming, and Colorado an impleaded defendant$ over the -102- |
