OCR Text |
Show Laramie River is a non-navigable stream rising in the mountains of Colorado^ flowing twenty-seven miles in that State, and then crossing into Wyoming for a further flow of 150 miles in that State to the North Platte River, of which it is a tributarye Residents in both States expropriated water from the Laramie River along its course at pleasure, and apparently without friction, until an irrigation project was launched in Colorado there to take from the river and divert to another watershed in Colorado a quantity of water so large as to leave in the stream flowing into Wyoming decidedly less than enough water to supply the prior appropriators (existing uses) within that State«» Wyoming brought suit in the.United States Supreme ^ourt to restrain any di- version in Colorado to a different watershed; or, in the alternative, to pre- vent new diversion within Colorado in such Quantity as to curtail or destroy the existing uses or appropriations in Wyoming* The suit failed on the first ground, but succeeded on the second. The Court found that the total of exist- ing uses in Wyoming reauired 272,500 acre feet of water per annum at the time actual appropriation from the stream was first attempted in Colorado for the project in question; that, after deducting from the flow of the stream the ousjatity required at the time for existing uses in Colorado, there remained only 288,000 acre feet to be had with all practicable storage and conservation facilities in use; and that, as 272,500 acre feet of that remaining quantity was' required for existing uses in Wyoming, only 15,500 acre feet could be al- lowed for the new project in Colorado. An injunction was issued accordingly- This' was all that the Court actually decided. In its discussion of the law the Court reasserted the principle that an upper riparian State in the arid west does not have such unlimited ownership or control of waters flowing therein as will justify it in diverting all of such waters regardless of injury to the lower riparian State; that diversion from one watershed to another, if per- mitted by the municipal law of both or all the States in controversy, is not legally objectionable; but that n. . • in suits between appropriators from the same stream, but in different states recognizing the doctrine of appro- priation, rights"under such appropriations should be judged by the rule of priorityo'?17i4- 17Vyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 1+19, 1x2 Sup. Ct. 552, 66 L. Ed. 999 (1921), 259 U.S. I+96, 66 L. Ed, 1026 (1921), 260 U*S. 1, 1+3 Sup. Ct. 2, 66 L. Ed. 999 (1922). The decision appears to place upon the States the duty of providing reasonable facilities to store and conserve water when there is not otherwise enough for all. Of this the Court saids nBut Wyoming takes the position that she should not be required to provide storage facilities in order that Colorado may obtain a larger amount of water from the common supply than otherwise would be possible. In a sense this is true; but not to the* extent of reauiring that the lowest natural flow be taken as the.test of the available supply« The question here is not what one State should do for fche other, but how each should exercise her relative rights in the waters of this interstate stream* Both are interested in the stream and both have great need .for the water. Both subscribe to the doctrine of appropriation, and by tfrat doctrine rights to water are measured by what is reasonably required and ap- plied. Both States recognize that conservation within practicable limits is essential in order that needless waste may be prevented and the largest feas- ible use may be secured. This comports with the all-pervading spirit of -fche |