| OCR Text |
Show LARAMIE RIVER LITIGATION 699 by Colorado from the Laramie river for all purposes reached the al- located total of 39,750; that the diversion of an amount greater than that total during the period above specified was with the acquiescence of Wyoming; and that Wyoming has not been injured. Colorado pledges that hereafter its officials will administer the flow of the Laramie river in that State in accordance with Colorado laws and adjudication decrees until a total amount of 39,750 acre feet, measured at the headgates, has been diverted, and, when that total has been reached in any year, Colorado can and will close the head- gates and keep them closed during the remainder of the irrigation season. In support of the contention that the diversion of more than 4,250 acre feet for the meadowland appropriations should not be regarded as a violation of our decree, if the aggregate diversions in Colorado do not exceed the total allowed, Colorado presents a declaratory judgment of the District Court of that State for the County of Laramie, entered February 2,1939, in the suit of Adelrick Benziger v. The Water Supply <& Storage Company, et al. That suit was brought on behalf of the meadowland appropriators in Colorado, and the defendants were the other appropriators in that State whose respective appropriations had been the subject of consideration in the suit in this Court. Our rulings were examined by the State court which concluded that they were in- tended to, and did, determine only the relative rights of the two States to divert the waters of the Laramie River and its tributaries and that it was not our purpose to withdraw the appropriations and water claims in Colorado from the operation of its local laws or to restrict the utilization of the waters in any way "not affecting the rights of the State of Wyoming and her water claimants." Accord- ingly the State court held that the fixing in our decree of the meadow- land appropriations was intended only to bear upon the relative rights of the States and was not intended to be an adjudication of the relative rights of the decreed appropriations in Colorado; hence, that so long as the aggregate of the water diverted in Colorado does not exceed the total of 39,750 acre feet accredited to the Colorado appro- priations, as stated, they are subject to the laws of Colorado. In that view the Court adjudged that the meadowland appropriators and the defendant appropriators were entitled to divert according to their respective priorities until they reached the amount of 39,750 acre feet, and that when that amount had been diverted "all headgates are to be closed for the balance of the season." A review of our decisions confirms the construction thus placed upon them. [The Court's review of its previous decisions is omitted in the interest of brevity.] While an injunction was * * * granted with respect to diversions for the meadowland appropriations in excess of 4,250 acre feet, this was manifestly upon the assumption that Colorado was otherwise using the total amount of Water allocated to that State. That it was not intended to restrict Colorado in determining the use of the water of the river, according to Colorado laws and adjudications, provided the diversions did not exceed the aggregate amount of 39,750 acre feet to which Colorado was entitled, is clear from the ruling upon another branch of the case. It appeared that the diversion for the Skyline |
