OCR Text |
Show flow is secured by the Federal Government* it is alleged that senior Nebras- ka appropriators will be deprived of a portion of the waters they are now receiving, which in turn will have an adverse effect upon the natural water supplies in the upper reaches of the river. Nebraska alleges that, in the late summer months, the upper river flow diminishes to such an extent that Nebraska canals will receive less water during the late summer period than under the present conditions of stream flow. It is also alleged that the United States has never acquired, through State permits, right to the use of the return flow waters in controversy, but in lieu thereof has asserted claim to the same by posting notices in 1912 on various tributaries of the North Platte River, where the return flow waters have accumulated. CASES DECIDED BY FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS Pioneer Irrigation Company vs» Weiland, State Engineer of Colorado, et al - In 1922 water users in Nebraska under the Pioneer~Ditch ^which heads on the North Fork of the Republican River in Colorado a few miles above the Colorado-Nebraska State line) brought suit ^ in the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado against water users under the same ditch in Colorado, including State Engineer John E, Field, M. Am. Soc. C« E., who was later succeeded by A. A. Weiland, M Am. Soc. C* E» Substantially one- third of the water diverted by the ditch is used in Colorado and two-thirds in Nebraska. The allegations in this case were to the effect that the water users in Nebraska under the Pioneer Ditch were being, deprived of their right- ful share of water by users in Colorado. The Federal District Court found that the water users in Nebraska must receive the same treatment as if the canal and the irrigators thereunder were located entirely within the State of Colorado* and enjoined the water users in Colorado and its State officials from any action which would not; be consonant with such requirement. The decision of the Federal Distric-b Court was appealed to the U» Se Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld th.e decision of the District Court. From this decision, an appeal was taken to the U. S« Supreme Court which confirmed the decision of the lower Federal Courts on June 5* 1922, and the waters diverted by the Pioneer Ditch have been distributed in accordance with the mandate of the Court since that date. Action Brought to Restrain the City of New York, N. Y«, from Maintain- ing a Dam on theTTelst Branch of the Byram River. - It was held*-$ that th© State of New York, in its exercise of power of eminent domain* could not enable the City of New York to erect, within the limits of the State, a dam across an unnavigable river, having its source in New York, and' divert tin© water for use in the City of New York, thus diminishing the flov/ and injuring Irrigation Co. vs. John E. Field and A* A. Ueiland as State Engineers of the State of Colorado, 2J8 Fed. 519; 259 U.S. 108 (1922); 1|2 S. Ct. 568. l+8pine vs. New York City,112 fled. 985185 U.S. 93;22 S.Ct. Rept. 592 (1902* |