State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado

Decision Date13 May 1957
Docket NumberO,No. 3,3
Citation77 S.Ct. 865,353 U.S. 953,1 L.Ed.2d 906
PartiesThe STATE OF WYOMING, complainant, v. The STATE OF COLORADO. riginal
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

'I. The State of Colorado, or anyone recognized by her as duly entitled thereto, shall have the right to divert from the Laramie river and its tributaries, for use in the State of Colorado, 49,375 acrefeet of water in each calendar year, which diversion and use shall be subject to the limitations and restrictions hereinafter set forth. The State of Wyoming, or anyone recognized by her as duly entitled thereto, shall have the right to divert and use all water flowing and remaining in the Laramie river and its tributaries after such diversion and use in Colorado.

'II. The State of Colorado, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees be, and they are severally enjoined

'(a) from diverting or permitting the diversion of more than 19,875 acre-feet of water in any calendar year from the Laramie river and its tributaries for use in Colorado at any or all points outside of the basin of said river, which amount may be diverted by the present owners of transmountain water rights or by their successors in ownership, through any ditches, canals, tunnels or structures capable of carrying the same, as the owners of said water rights and of such structures may from time to time agree among themselves, or as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;

'(b) from diverting or permitting the diversion of more than 29,500 acre-feet of water in any calendar year from the Laramie river and its tributaries for use in Colorado within the drainage basin of said river, of which amount not more than 1,800 acre-feet shall be diverted in any calendar year after July 31; provided, that if in any calendar year any part or all of said 19,875 acre-feet of water which may be diverted for use outside of the drainage basin of said river is not so diverted for use outside the drainage basin of said river, the amount not so diverted may be added to the amount which may be diverted hereunder for use in Colorado within the drainage...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Sporhase v. Nebraska Douglas
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1982
    ...its borders has been fostered over the years not only by our equitable apportionment decrees, see, e.g., Wyoming v. Colorado, 353 U.S. 953, 77 S.Ct. 865, 1 L.Ed.2d 906 (1957), but also by the negotiation and enforcement of interstate compacts. Our law therefore has recognized the relevance ......
  • Pillsbury Co. v. Midland Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 87-5041.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 21, 1989
    ... ... facilities and barge loading/unloading terminals in the area would state that no vessels or other marine equipment from their facilities and ... ...
  • United States v. Sohnen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 10, 1969
  • Sanford Bros. Boats, Inc. v. Vidrine
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 15, 1969
    ... ...         In N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Colorado Contractors Ass'n, 10 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 360, the demands of justice were ... A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...the original decree in Wyoming v. Colorado was dissolved upon joint motion in 1957 because both states wished to amend the bargain. See 353 U.S. 953, 953 (1957). By contrast, the decree in Arizona v. California—being predicated largely, though not entirely, on the Boulder Canyon Project Act......
  • Chapter 22 THE FUTURE OF INTERSTATE ALLOCATION OF WATER
    • United States
    • FNREL - Annual Institute Vol. 29 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...U.S. 1 (1922), construed, 286 U.S. 494 (1932), construed, 298 U.S. 573 (1936), construed, 309 U.S. 572 (1940), modified by stipulation, 353 U.S. 953 (1957). Whether the 1931 decree entered in New Jersey v. New York really amounted to an apportionment is debatable. See Trelease, "Arizona v. ......
  • Chapter 9 (33) MOVING TRIBES INTO THE MAINSTREAM OF COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Annual Institute Vol. 63 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html. [3] 259 U.S. 419 (1922), modified, 260 U.S. 1 (1922), vacated and new decree entered, 353 U.S. 953 (1957). [4] 207 U.S. 564 (1908). [5] 373 U.S. 546 (1963). [6] See Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study," https:/......
  • Chapter 14 A FEDERAL POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN WATER
    • United States
    • FNREL - Annual Institute Vol. 14 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419 (1922). [29] Id., 260 U.S. 1 (1922); 286 U.S. 494 (1932); 298 U.S. 573 (1936); 309 U.S. 572 (1940). [30] Id., 353 U.S. 953 (1957). [31] 373 U.S. 546 (1963). [32] Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057 (1928), 43 U.S.C. §§ 617 -617t (1964). [33] 373 U.S. 546, 630......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT