WSP12076 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

26 riations even with the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel in operation. TIle Court made clear that there was no controveny in this case, as there was in Kansas v. Colorado, regarding the question of whether prior appropriation or riparian rules would apply. Since both Wyoming and Colorado historically adhered to prior appropriation it would be applied to this interstate dispute, as well. As the Court's decision would prove, however, the application of this rule would not work to Colorado's benefit in this case. The Colorado defense was also less successful in using an argument against Wyoming's charges that it used successfully against Kansas: Colorado claimed again tl,at its uses of Laramie water were superior to those of Wyoming. AP the Supreme Court's opinion reads: Colorado further answers that she can accomplish more with the water than Wyoming does or can; that she pro- ~,ses to use it on lands in the Cache La Poudre Valley, and that they with less water will produce more than tLe lands in the portion of the Laramie Valley known as the Laramie plains.SS The Court, however, saw no reason to apply the precedent of 1907, as in this case Wyoming proved that its irrigated lands "offer opportunities and advantages which are well recognized. ,,86 The Court dismissed as "untenable,,~7 however, Wyoming's claim that Colorado could not divert water to another watershed, citing cases to prove that "diversions from one watershed to another are commonly made in both states and the practice is recognized by the decisions of their courts."S8 Echoes of this same argument would be heard again from Wyoming in 1945, however. Wyoming would try to limit Cclorado dominance of Colorado River water by using similar arguments against the increasing transbasin and transmountain diversions by Colorado \~ter users. The Court also dismissed as unreasonable the Colorado claim that it could do what it wished with all of the Laramie waters within its borders. TIle opinion