OCR Text |
Show 165 sustained the right of the United States to collect seepage waters and apply them on any of the lands of the Project.73 Also important here is Nebraska v. Wyoming, in which those States sought an apportionment of the waters of the North Platte River.74 Colorado was impleaded as a defendant, and the United States was granted leave to intervene.75 One question concerned the recapture in Wyoming of return-flow water from the Kendrick Project after its return to the River and commingling with the general flow. Another concerned diversions from the River at or above the Alcova Reservoir as "in lieu of" Kendrick Project return flow reaching the River below Alcova.76 While the Project was not then completed, it was estimated that natural drainage and that from drainage facilities, including sump areas, would contribute return flow of 96,000 acre-feet a year, of which an estimated 46,000 would occur during the irrigation period.77 The Court's opinion ex- pressly employs the term "natural flow" as including return flow reaching the River.78 Reaffirming the principles of the Ide case, the Court held that the United States, as owner of the Project, is entitled to obtain full use of water for the Project and to retain control over it until abandonment.79 In connection with return flow from drainage facilities, the Court deferred consideration on the merits pending ascertainment of the extent of the con- tribution from artificial drainage. It accordingly concluded that, when the Project had been put in operation and there is a full development of return flow, application might be made for revision of the decree to permit "in lieu of" diversions at or above Alcova.80 Worthy of note here is an 1899 Colorado statute providing that ditches built to use "waste, seepage or spring waters of 78 United States v. Tilley, 124 F. 2d 850 (O. A. 8,1941). "325 U. S. 589, 633-637 <1945). 78 See supra, pp. 47-48. 78 325 U. S. at 636-637. 77 325 U. S. at 634. 78 Ibid. 78 325 U. S. at 637. *>IMd. |