State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado
| Decision Date | 09 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,O,3 |
| Citation | 43 S.Ct. 2,66 L.Ed. 1026,260 U.S. 1 |
| Parties | STATE OF WYOMING v. STATE OF COLORADO et al. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
1. On consideration of the defendants' petition for a rehearing heretofore presented by leave of the court, it is considered, ordered, and decreed that the decree entered herein on June 5, 1922,1 be modified to read as follows:
This cause having been heretofore submitted on the pleadings and the evidence taken before and reported by the commissioners appointed for the purpose, and the Court being now fully advised in the premises:
It is considered, ordered, and decreed that the defendants, their officers, agents, and servants, be, and they are hereby, severally enjoined from diverting or taking from the Laramie river and its tributaries in the state of Colorado more than 15,500 acre-feet of water per annum in virtue of or through what is designated in the pleadings and evidence as the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel appropriation in that state.
Provided that this decree shall not prejudice the right of the state of Colorado, or of any one recognized by her as duly entitled thereto, to continue to exercise the right now existing and hereby recognized to divert and take from such stream and its tributaries in that state 18,000 acre-feet of water per annum in virtue of and through what is designated in the pleadings and evidence as the Skyline Ditch appropriation in that state, nor prejudice the right of that state, or of any one recognized by her as duly entitled thereto, to continue to exercise the right now existing and hereby recognized to divert and take from such stream and its tributaries in that state 4,250 acre-feet of water per annum in virtue of and through the meadow land appropriations in that state which are named in the pleadings and evidence, nor prejudice the right of the state of Colorado, or of any one recognized by her as duly entitled thereto, to continue to exercise the right now existing and hereby recognized to divert and take from the headwaters of Deadman creek, a Colorado tributary of the Laramie river, the relatively small amount of water appropriated therefrom prior to the year 1902 by and through what is designated in the evidence as the Wilson Supply Ditch, nor prejudice or affect the right of the state of Colorado or the state of Wyoming, or of any one recognized by either state as duly entitled thereto, to continue to exercise the right to divert and use water from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Nebraska v. State of Wyoming United States
... ... [Syllabus from pages 589-590 intentionally omitted] ... Page 590 ... Bill in equity by the State of Nebraska against the State of Wyoming for a determination of the equitable share of the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado in the waters of the North Platte river and for an injunction restraining the alleged wrongful diversions, wherein the State of Colorado filed an answer, together with a cross-bill against the State of Nebraska and the State of Wyoming praying for an equitable apportionment between the states, and ... ...
-
Arizona v. California
...42 S.Ct. 552, 66 L.Ed. 999 (1922), the Court corrected an inadvertent omission four months after the entry of a decree. 260 U.S. 1, 43 S.Ct. 2, 66 L.Ed. 1026 (1922). See 2 R. Clark, Waters & Water Rights 338 (1967). 17 See Report of Special Master on Re-Reference 145 (December 17, 1929), in......
-
State v. State
...In those cases, Wyoming sought to enforce this Court's earlier decree apportioning the Laramie River. See Wyoming v. Colorado, 260 U.S. 1, 43 S.Ct. 2, 66 L.Ed. 1026 (1922). We held that the decree controlled the allocation of water between Wyoming and Colorado, not within them. As we recogn......
-
Brooks v. United States
... ... Mexico and flows west through Arizona to its junction with the Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona ... The decree involved was the ... the Gila River, claiming water rights in the Gila River within the state of New Mexico, in excess of the waters decreed to them by the consent ... Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 42 S.Ct. 552, 66 L.Ed. 999; Id., 260 U.S. 1, 43 ... ...
-
Addressing barriers to watershed protection.
...591 (1945) (North Platte River), modified, 345 U.S. 981 (1953); Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 455 (1922) (Laramie River), modified, 260 U.S. 1 (1922), vacated, 353 U.S. 593 (1957). Interstate disputes also frequently arise over water pollution issues. See, e.g., Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 5......
-
Chapter 20 - § 20.2 • INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND FEDERAL DECREES
...full document. --------Notes:[43] Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1901); 206 U.S. 46 (1907).[44] Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 496; 260 U.S. 1 (1922). ...
-
Federal Water Rights in the Colorado River
...concerning the United States Senator Carl Hayden, Laramie (Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 speaking for the state of Arizona, has U. S. 419; 260 U. S. 1). Each of given notice that if the bill is passed battles was waged in the United States Arizona will be compelled in self- Supreme Court and was......