| OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 691 struction problem, which is the only substantial controversy in the case." Evidently therefore the construction of the decree in the ear- lier suit is the chief matter in dispute. [The court here reviews the earlier case at some length. Its dis- cussion is omitted in the interest of brevity.] We are of opinion that the record, opinion, and decree in the prior suit, here reviewed at length, show very plainly that the decree must be taken as determining the relative rights of the two States, including their respective citizens, to divert and use the waters of the Laramie and its tributaries. These rights were put in issue by the pleadings, displayed in the evidence, and considered and resolved in the opinion. Not only so, but the question of priority in time and right as between the appropriations in Colorado and those in Wyoming was directly presented by the pleadings and evidence and distinctly dealt with and resolved in the opinion. As appears from the opinion, the Court held that the doctrine, long recognized and enforced in both States, whereby priority of appropri- ation gives superiority of right, furnished the only equitable and right basis on which to determine the controversy between them shown in the pleadings and evidence. And as forther appears from the opinion, the Court made specific findings showing the amount of water in the available supply, its insufficiency to satisfy all asserted appropriations, the date when the proposed tunnel appropriation in Colorado was initiated, the names and amounts of the appropriations in Colorado which were senior to that appropriation, the amount of water included in the Wyoming appropriations which were senior to it, and the amount which would remain in the supply and be subject to that appropriation after de- ducting what was required to satisfy the senior appropriations in both States. These findings were pertinent to the issues, and upon them the Court pronounced its decree. Under a familiar rule the facts thus determined are not open to dispute in a subsequent suit between the same States.1 As before shown, the modified decree (1) restricts diversion under the Colorado tunnel appropriation to 15,500 acre feet, the amount which under the findings would remain in the supply after deducting the quantities included in the senior appropriations in both States; (2) recognizes and protects the Skyline appropriation of 18,000 acre feet, it being a senior Colorado appropriation; (3) similarly sustains the meadow-land appropriations of 4,250 acre feet, they being senior Colorado appropriations; (4) recognizes and protects the small Wilson Supply ditch appropriation made prior to 1902, it being a senior Colorado appropriation inadvertently omitted from the list in the opinion but given its proper place by a modification of the original decree; and (5) saves from prejudice all appropriations of the waters of Sand Creek, found not to be a tributary of the Laramie. The decree enjoins any diversion through the tunnel appropriation in excess of the 15,500 acre feet accorded to it-and this doubtless for the reason that there had been a declared and real purpose to divert from 56,000 to 71,000 acre feet under that appropriation. No showing 1 Southern Pacific B. Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 1, 48; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 183 U.S. 519, 532. |
