Laserfiche WebLink
<br />27 <br /> <br />cites the rejection of tllis claim in Kansas v. Colorado. Being satisfied that <br /> <br />this claim was equally untenable in the case at hand, the Court also rejected <br /> <br /> <br />it. The ruling said that both states had certain rights to the Laramie's use.89 <br /> <br />Yet as the estil11ilted available supply of the Laramie "as not sufficient <br /> <br />to satisfy Wyoming's appropriations and the proposed tunnel appropriation of <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado, the Supreme Court had to "consider their relative priorities.,,90 <br /> <br />Wyoming claimed that the tunnel only established rights to water in 1909; <br /> <br />Colorado insisted that their claim was established in 1902. Establishing this <br />91 <br />date was crucial, as some "large irrigation ,lOrks" ..ere begun in Wyoming <br /> <br />between these two dates and had established priorities. The Court agreed ..ith <br /> <br />Wyornin;), judging that up until 1909, the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel ..as still "at <br />92 <br />large." Tbus, Wyoming was judged to have senior appropriations to the tunnel <br /> <br />93 <br />totalling 272,500 acre-feet. It was ruled that only 15,500 acre-feet could <br /> <br />be diverted through Colorado's tunnel. Even when added to the other Colorado <br /> <br />rights to the Laramie (lB,OOO acre-feet through the Skyline ditch and 4,250 for <br /> <br />use in Colorado meado..lands) the total was but a fraction of what Colorado would <br /> <br />have liked to use. <br /> <br />This first decision would not settle all controversy between Wyoming and <br /> <br />Colorado over the Laramie. Tbe second Wyoming v. Colorado case came to the <br /> <br />Supreme Court ten years later. Cclorado was accused of violating the limits to <br /> <br />use of the river that were set in 1922. Wyoming feared that Colorado would con- <br /> <br />tinue to increase such diversions to the point that, if unrestrained, the latter <br /> <br />..ould "largely or entirely deprive Wyoming of the use of the ..ater accorded to <br /> <br /> <br />her in the decree.,,94 Wyoming also claimed that Colorado's measuring devices did <br /> <br />not accurately record the excessive quantities of ..ater actually being diverted <br />95 <br />by the Colorado users. The defense moved to dismiss the case in 1932, but <br /> <br />- -.: ~'... <br /> <br />'".' ~. - ----.-- .~.., <br />