OCR Text |
Show 684 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS in excess of that amount and insists that these permits constitute solemn adjudications by that officer that the supply is adequate to cover them. But in this the nature of the permits is misapprehended. In fact and in law they are not adjudications, but mere licenses to appropriate, if the requisite amount of water be there. As to many nothing ever is done under them by the intending appropriators. In such cases there is no appropriation; and even in others the amount of the appropriation turns on what is actually done under the permit. In late years the permits relating to these streams have contained a provision, saying: "The records of the State Engineer's office show the waters of [the particular stream] to be largely appropriated. The appropriator under the permit is hereby notified of this fact, and the issuance of this permit grants only the right to divert and use the sur- plus or waste water of the stream and confers no rights which will interfere with or impair the use of water by prior appropriators." It therefore is plain that these permits have no such probative force as Colorado seeks to have attributed to them. Colorado also comments on the amount of water stored in Wyo- ming reservoirs in 1912 and seeks to draw from this an inference that the available supply was greater than we have indicated. But the in- ference is not justified, and for these reasons: First, a part of what was stored was dead water, that is, was below the level from which water could be drawn off and conducted to the places of use. This is a matter commonly experienced in the selection and use of reservoir sites. Sec- ondly, the flow of 1912 was above what could be depended on and prudence required that a substantial part be carried over to meet a possible shortage in the succeeding year. And, thirdly, the evidence shows that in 1912 the storing process was improvidently carried to a point which infringed the rights of small appropriators who were without storage facilities. The available supply-the 288,000 acre-feet-is not sufficient to sat- isfy the Wyoming appropriations dependent thereon and also the proposed Colorado appropriation, so it becomes necessary to consider their relative priorities. There are some existing Colorado appropriations having priorities entitling them to precedence over many of the Wyoming appropria- tions. These recognized Colorado appropriations are, 18,000 acre-feet for what is known as the Skyline Ditch and 4,250 acre-feet for the irrigation of that number of acres of native-hay meadows in the Lara- mie valley in Colorado, the 4,250 acre-feet being what Colorado's chief witness testifies is reasonably required for the purpose, although a larger amount is claimed in the State's answer. These recognized Col- orado appropriations, aggregating 22,250 acre-feet, are not to be deducted from the 288,000 acre-feet, that being the available supply after they are satisfied. Nor is Colorado's appropriation from Sand Creek to be deducted, that creek, as we have shown, not being a tribu- tary of the Laramie. The proposed Colorado appropriation which is in controversy here is spoken of in the evidence as the Laramie-Poudre tunnel diversion and is part of an irrigation project known as the Laramie-Poudre project. Colorado insists that this proposed appropriation takes pri- ority, by relation, as of August 25, 1902, and Wyoming that the priority can relate only to the latter part of 1909. The true date is a |