OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 683 discharges into Hutton Lake, a few miles from the river. In excep- tional years-about one in five--the waters of the creek overflow the lake for a short period and find their way over the prairie into the river. Otherwise the river receives no water from the creek. The proof of this is direct and undisputed. The creek is nominally a tributary of the river, but only that. Besides, its flow does not appear to have been measured. The witness merely estimated it at what he thought would be the natural run-off of the adjacent territory. Other evidence sug- gests that the estimate is too high, but this we need not consider. A substantial part of the flow is diverted, through what is known as the Divide Ditch, for use in irrigating lands in Colorado, and the evi- dence suggests, if it does not establish, that existing appropriations in the two States take the entire flow. For these reasons the waters of this creek cannot be regarded as a factor in this controversy. After passing Woods, and while traversing the territory wherein are the Wyoming appropriations with which we are concerned, the Laramie receives one large and some very small additions to its waters. The large addition comes from the Little Laramie, a stream whose source and entire length are in Wyoming. Its natural flow is a little more than one-half of that of the main stream at Woods and is subject to much the same variations. Part of its flow is used under appropria- tions along its course and the remainder passes into the main stream. Including what is appropriated along its course, and excluding minor contributions by small creeks after it gets well away from its head- waters, we think the amount available for practical use is 93,000 acre-feet per year. None of the small tributaries, whether of the Laramie or the Little Laramie, adds much to the available supply. Their natural flow is small. As to some it is all used under old appropriations; as to some it is partly used under such appropriations; and as to some it is only seasonal, the channels being dry much of the year. Some creeks spoken of in Colorado's evidence as tributaries are otherwise shown not to be such, but to deliver their waters into lakes or ponds not connected with either of the principal streams. Colorado's evidence also takes into account some tributaries which discharge into the Laramie below the points of diversion of all the Wyoming appropriations with which we are concerned. One, of which much is said in the evidence, is the Sybille. It reaches the Laramie below the diversion for the Wheat- land District (the lowest diversion we are to consider), but in its course passes through that district. A small part of its flow is used in that district and it is riot practicable to use more. What is used should, for present purposes, be treated as if it reached the Laramie above the Wheatland diversion. Wyoming contends that none of these smal] tributaries, other than the Sybille, contributes any dependable amount to the available supply. We think there is in the aggregate a fairly dependable contribution of 25,000 acre-feet, but not more. It results that, in our opinion, the entire supply available for the proposed Colorado appropriation and the Wyoming appropriations down to and including the diversion for the Wheatland District is 288 j000 acre-feet. In contending for a larger finding, Colorado points to the issue by Wyoming's State Engineer of permits, so-called, for appropriations |