| OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 693 of water in the Laramie available to Wyoming for its water users has been less than the 272,500 acre feet specified in the Court's find- ings, and this shortage has been caused by the excessive and otherwise unlawful diversions before described. It is true that some of the allegations purporting to state violations of the decree are uncertain and indefinite, but there are many which are not subject to this criti- cism, and plainly there is enough in the bill to require that the de- fendant be called upoitto answer it. An order will be entered overruling the motion to dismiss, permit- ting Wyoming to amend her bill within thirty days by making some of its allegations more definite and certain, if she be so advised, and permitting Colorado to answer the bill or amended bill, as the case may be, on or before the first day of September, next. Motion to Dismiss Overruled. Wyoming v. Colorado 298 U.S. 573 (1936) On Final Hearing of a suit brought in this Court by Wyoming charging Colorado and her water claimants with departures from the decree by which this Court, in an earlier suit, adjudicated the relative rights of the two States and their respective citizens to use the waters of the Laramie River and its tributaries. * * * Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the Court. By this suit the State of Wyoming complains of the State of Colo- rado and asserts that the latter and her water claimants have been and are departing from a decree rendered by this Court in an earlier suit between these States (259 U.S. 419, 496; 260 U.S. l),and that the asserted departures have been and are working material injury to Wyoming and her water claimants. The principal relief sought is an injunction enforcing adherence to that decree. [The Court here reviews at some length its earlier decisions in this case, pp. 665ff ante.'] The departures from the decree which are charged against Colo- rado in the bill are of two classes-one comprising diversions under claims not confirmed or recognized in the decree, and the other con- sisting of diversions under each of the confirmed Colorado claims of more water than the decree accredits to the claim. In the answer Colorado denies that certain of the diversions have been excessive or otherwise contrary to the decree, and admits that other designated diversions have not been in accord with the decree as construed in our opinion overruling the motion to dismiss, but asserts that they have been made in good faith and in accord with what the State's of- ficers have understood the decree to be. One complaint is of diversions through what are described in the bill and answer as Bob Creek ditch, Bob Creek extension ditch, Col- umbine ditch, and Lost Lake Reservoir system. These diversions are admitted in the answer. They are made, not under claims recognized or confirmed in the decree, but quite independently of it. Under the decree, as is pointed out in our opinion overruling the motion to dismiss, the Colorado claims which the decree recognizes and con- |
