STATE OF WYOMING
v.
STATE OF COLORADO ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wyoming sought to enjoin Colorado from diverting excessive water from the Laramie River and its tributaries, claiming Colorado violated Wyoming's water rights. The Supreme Court modified its prior decree to limit Colorado's new diversions through the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel appropriation to 15,500 acre-feet per annum while preserving Colorado's existing rights to divert water through the Skyline Ditch, meadow-land appropriations, and other established sources, and apportioned the litigation costs equally among Wyoming, Colorado, and two corporate defendants.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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, 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, énjdinéd from diverting or taking from ihes Laramie River and its tributaries in the State of Colorado more than fifteen thousand five hundred (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 eighteen thousand (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 four thousand two hundred and fifty (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 fight 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 Sand Creek, sometimes spoken'of as a tributary of the Laramie River, in virtue of any existing and lawful appropriation of the waters of such creek;
And it is. also considered, ordered and decreed that the costs of this suit be apportioned among and paid by the parties thereto as follows: The State of Wyoming one-third, the State of Colorado one-third, and the two corporate defendants jointly one-third.
And it is further considered, ordered and decreed that the clerk of this Court do transmit to the chief magistrates of the States 'of Colorado and Wyoming copies of this decree duly authenticated under the seal of this Court.
2. In view of the modifications hereby made in the decree of June 5, 1922, the petition for rehearing in this cause is hereby denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983)…was amended with the consent of the parties to take account of changed conditions concerning the discharge of sewage. In Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419 (1922), the Court corrected an inadvertent omission four months after the entry of a decree. 260 U. S. 1 (1922). See 2 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights 338 (1967). See Report of Special Master on Re-Reference in Wisconsin v. Illinois, O. T. 1929, Nos. 7, 11, and 12, Orig., p. 145 (“It is recommended that the Court should retain jurisdiction as there…
-
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1945)…“Q. — Accordingly, the plus or minus corrections are based upon this matter of judgment. “A. — Yes.” Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 496. Id. 260 U. S. 1. Id. 286 U. S. 494; 298 U. S. 573; 309 U. S. 572. Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U. S. 367; 281 U. S. 179; 289 U. S. 395; 309 U. S. 569; 311 U. S. 107; 313 U. S. 547.…
-
Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1932)…Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit brought by the State of Wyoming against the State of Colorado to enforce a decree of this Court (259 U. S. 419, 496; 260 U. S. 1), rendered in an earlier suit between the same States respecting their relative rights to divert and use for irrigation the waters of the Laramie River, a stream rising in Colorado and flowing-northward into Wyoming. In the present bill, shortly de…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence