| OCR Text |
Show NORTH PLATTE RIVER LITIGATION 759 acre feet at the headgate. It is difficult to see the equity in Wyo- ming's demand that Interstate's quota from the river be reduced by that amount. These irrigators bore their share of the cost of the operation and maintenance of Pathfinder and Guernsey and also paid the cost of the pumping. It is not just that they forego the benefits of the water for which they are paying, give the benefit to others, and take on the additional expense of pumping. We have carefully considered Wyoming's claim that excessive esti- mates have been allowed Tri-State and Northport. As respects Tri- State there is a sharp conflict over the evidence concerning the acreage served. While the acreage of 52,300 acres computed by the Special Master is liberal, it has support in the evidence and Wyoming has not made a sufficient showing which warrants a reduction from that figure. It is true that the Tri-State acreage expanded as the result of Warren Act contracts and that a demand on natural flow to supply that agpre^ate acreage on its face seems inequitable in relation to canals junior to Tri-State which have no storage rights. But the Special Master found that the supply for the Wyoming private canals in this section has also been enhanced through the operation of Path- finder and return flows resulting from the use of storage water. We do not believe sufficient disparity has been shown to warrant an ad- justment in the decree. The Special Master allowed 30 per cent for loss in the Tri-State Canal. Wyoming claims that should be reduced because water intercepted in the Tri-State Canal for delivery to Northport does not suffer as great a loss since it is not carried as far. But Wyoming's witness reached the same view as the Special Master. And no proof is advanced by Wyoming which undermines that conclusion. Moreover, an examination of the points at which the return flows are intercepted indicates that the room for difference of opinion is not as great as Wyoming suggests. 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.20 But there apparently was not deducted the accretions from Spring Creek, a tributary which flows into the river below the Wyoming-Nebraska line and about Tri-State Dam.21 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 second feet (one second 80 They are shown on Wyoming's Exhibit No. 149. a They are shown on Wyoming's Exhibit No. 15.0. |
