OCR Text |
Show NORTH PLATTE RIVER LITIGATION 725 priorities to supplement the direct flow rights of such projects by the addition of waters stored in its reservoirs. All of the acts of the Reclamation Bureau in operating the reservoirs so as to impound and release waters of the river are subject to the authority of Wyoming; and she and her officers are under the duty to administer these waters fairly and impartially, and to control appropriators whose rights arise under the law of Wyoming from encroaching upon the rights of Nebraska appropriators by diminishing the flow so that the latter are unable to obtain the waters embraced within their appropriations. This duty Wyoming officials have neglected and disregarded, in spite of Nebraska's protests; and have permitted the diversion of waters belonging to Nebraska's appropriators to the great loss and damage of her citizens. The priorities of the appropriators in each state, includ- ing the Bureau of Reclamation, can be ascertained, and investigation discloses that the defendant has allotted the Bureau too early a date with respect to a proposed project and unless restrained Wyoming will permit appropriation in aid thereof. The motion to dismiss advances three propositions of law. 1. Colorado is said to be an indispensable party, because the bill discloses that the North Platte rises in that state and drains a consid- erable area therein. The contention is without merit. Nebraska as- serts no wrongful act of Colorado and prays no relief against her. We need not determine whether Colorado would be a proper party, or whether at a later stage of the cause pleadings or proofs may dis- close a necessity to bring her into the suit. It suffices to say that upon the face of the bill she is not a necessary party to the dispute between Nebraska and Wyoming concerning the respective priorities and rights of their citizens in the waters of the North Platte River. 2. The motion asserts that the Secretary of the Interior is an indis- pensable party. The bill alleges, and we know as matter of law,3 that the Secretary and his agents, acting by authority of the Recla- mation Act and supplementary legislation, must obtain permits and priorities for the use of water from the State of Wyoming in the same manner as a private appropriator or an irrigation district formed under the state law. His rights can rise no higher than those of Wyoming, and an adjudication of the defendant's rights will neces- sarily bind him. Wyoming will stand in judgment for him as for any other appropriator in that state. He is not a necessary party. 3. Wyoming says that the bill fails to state a cause of action in equity and states no matter of equity entitling Nebraska to the relief for which she asks. The printed argument submitted on behalf of defendant asserts that the complaint is vague and indefinite in its assertions of fact and may be read as claiming the entire flow of the river for use in Nebraska. We do not so read the bill. The plaintiff asserts that appropriations have been made in both states; that some in Wyoming are prior to others in Nebraska and vice versa, and prays an ascertainment of the proper dates of all and relief in conformity with the facts found. In oral argument the defendant called attention to statements in the bill to the effect that certain of the Nebraska water users whose rights the plaintiff desires adjudicated, must take water from the Platte * Act of June 17,1902, c. 1093, § 8, 32 Stat. 390 ; U.S.C. Tit. 43, § 383. |