| OCR Text |
Show The second suit over the waters of this river *° was filed by Wyoming against Colorado on October 6, 1930. This suit involved the interpretation of the decree of the U. 3. Supreme Court entered in the former suit. The decision of the Court, announced June 1* 1936* sustained the contentions of Colorado that the quantities of water, theretofore recognized by the Su- preme Court in the former case as having been diverted out of the Laramie River by agencies in Colorado, were in the nature of an allocation of waters to the State of Colorado.* and not to its individual water users, and that Colorado could rightfully administer such quantum under the provisions of its own laws without violating the interests of Wyoming* so long as such quantum (which was fixed at 39,750 acre-feet in any one year) was not ex- ceeded* The decision* however* had the effect of discontinuing two small trans- mountain diversions* which were not mentioned in the former proceeding* out; of the Laramie River to the Cache la Poudre River. Colorado's interpreta- tion of the words "divert and take"in the former decree* with reference to the meadowlands* meant a consumptive use and not headgate diversions. The Court held* however* that previous headgate diversions of these meadowland ditches resulted in an unnecessary use of water and that the actual consump- tive use of water on wild meadowlands in Colorado, which was found equal to 1 acre-foot per 9ere actually irrigated* should be measured at the hoadgate of the ditches. Because of the practice of flooding peculiar to this type of crop, en- forcement of the docroe v/ill have the effect of destroying the greater part; of about l|*25O acres of hay lands in Colorado, The Court gave the State o£ Colorado until September 15* 1938* to file application for a rehearing in respect to that part of the decision relating to the meadowlands. The Court denied Wyoming*s demand that an interstate bailiff be designated by the Court to administer the watars of this stream, and left the administration of the stream in the hands of the State Engineers of the two States; but i~b retained jurisdiction of this phase of the case for the purpose of afford- ing VJyomin^ relief in the event that future difficulties of administration between the States justified such relief. Chicago Lakes Drainage Cassis. - This suit39 was instituted by the Sta"t© of /risconsin~and other States against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, Illinois* to enjoin defendants from withdrawing 8,500 cubic feet of water per sec. from Lake Michigan. The Sanitary District of Chicago increased diversions from Lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal from Ij*l67 to 8,500 cubic feet per second in violation of a permit theretofore issued hy the War Department. Later, the War Departmont author- ized this increase for purposes of sewage dilution. The Court held that, in so far as the diversion was not for the purpose of navigation in the Chicago River, it was without legal basis and could be enjoined by the Sta"tes bordering on the Great Lakes and having riparian rights that were being in- jured by the lowering of the level of the lakes. 3%yoming vs« Colorado, 298 U. S» 573. 39i|iSconsin vs. Illinois, et al. , 278 U. S. 367, 1+9 S. Ct. 163 (1929) -95- |
