OCR Text |
Show 754 INTERSTATE AD J UDICATION S f ormance under them must be recognized by the decree. He concluded, however, that in the allocation of the natural flow the storage water available might bear upon the equities of the States, although it would have no relevancy to the legal rights of individual appropriators inter se under the law of either Wyoming or Nebraska. We think the equities of the case support the failure to include storage water in the apportionment. We do not reach the question whether the presence of the storage water contracts would preclude an apportionment of storage water. The nine Wyoming private canals and the Mitchell and Ramshorn canals have no contract rights to receive storage water from the federal reservoirs. It is difficult for us to see how it would be equitable to make an apportionment on the basis that they do. In cer- tain years in the past there have been excessive diversions by canals in this section, including the nine Wyoming private canals. We can- not assume that an apportionment of storage water is necessary to prevent a recurrence of those practices. Certainly an apportionment of storage water would disrupt the system of water administration which has become established pursuant to mandate of Congress in § 8 of the Reclamation Act that the Secretary of the Interior in the construction of these federal projects should proceed in conformity with state law. In pursuance thereto all of the storage water is dis- posed of under contracts with project users and Warren Act canals. It appears that under that system of administration of storage water no State and no water users within a State are entitled to the use of storage facilities or storage water unless they contract for the use. See Wyo. Rev. Stats. (1931), §§ 122-1504,122-1508,122-1602. If stor- age water is not segregated, storage water contractors in times of shortage of the total supply will be deprived of the use of a part of the storage supply for which they pay. If storage water is not segre- gated, those who have not contracted for the storage supply will re- ceive at the expense of those who have contracted for it a substantial increment to the natural flow supply which, as we have seen, has been insufficient to go around. In Wyoming v. Colorado, supra, the Court did not apportion storage water. It apportioned natural flow only. It took into account when it made that apportionment the effects of storage in equalizing natural flow in Wyoming. We think no more should be done here to effect an equitable apportionment. We have already noted the exceptional features of this section-the great concentration of demand in a short, compact area, the distinctly interstate scope and character of water distribution, with Wyoming appropriations serving Nebraska uses, with the dependence of Ne- braska canals on Wyoming diversions, with the joint use of canals to serve both States. There has been no effective interstate administra- tion. The need to treat the section as an administrative unit without regard to state lines seems apparent. The Special Master concluded that the most feasible method of apportionment would be a distribu- tion of natural flow on a percentage of daily flow basis. |