WSP12076 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28 was overruled on the grounds that there vas evidence that excessive diversions were made from the Laramie between 1926 and 1929.96 The suit was resumed in 1936. Wyoming again argued that colorado was greatly exceeding its share of the Laramie, especially concerning the 4,250 acre-feet yearly limit that could be diverted to the Colorado meadowlands. Wyoming main- tained th~t Colorado exceeded this limit by anywhere from 31,750 to approximately 60,000 acre-feet per year. In. its defense, Colorado contended that while the amount actually taken from the Laramie River initially did greatly exceed the limit, the amount returned to the river by return flow and surface drainage made up for this excess. 'Ille Court rejected this argument, contending that no more than 4,250 acre-feet cc,uld be taken from the stream at the point of diversion, regardless of return flow. It is interesting that the Court's opinion made no mention of the issue of water quality and that return flow water can become loaded vith salt in the process of percolation. The Court agreed with Colorado's contention that since Imter rights are transferable Colorado could exceed diversions through one of its ditches if another ditch decreased its intake accordingly. 97 The ruling was that as long as the aggregate diversions in Colorado did not exceed the aggregate limit of 37,750 acre-feet as decreed in 1922 then the Colorado diverters could not be held liable for overuse. The Court left it to the tvo states to worK out the problem , h 'd' b h' , 98 Wlt measur~ng eVlces y t elr Olin cooperatlon. The fourth Wyoming v. Colorado case prior to the 1946 UCRBCC l~S brought to the Supreme COurt in 1940. Wyoming maintained yet again that Colorado was diverting from the Laramie more than the decreed limit. In short, the Court ruled in favor of Colorado, which Claimed that these excess diversion in 1939 were actually approved by various officers in the Wyoming governor's office.99