Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Section 4 <br />Legal Framework for Water Use <br /> <br />water user could take steps to eliminate certain <br />phreatophytes and thereby "salvage" additional water. <br />That water, however, is owed to the stream and does not <br />necessarily accrue to the benefit of the specific water <br />user conducting the "salvage" activity, since a water user <br />cannot take credit for a "salvage" activity and thereby <br />divert more water.50 Salvage water is owed to the stream <br />to be diverted by downstream water users pursuant to <br />the priority system. <br /> <br />4.3 Interstate Compacts, Equitable <br /> <br />Apportionment Decrees, and <br /> <br />Memoranda of Understanding <br /> <br />Similar to limitations imposed by the prior appropriation <br />system, interstate compacts and equitable apportionment <br />decrees also place limitations on water use in Colorado. <br />Allocation of water supplies among states has been <br />accomplished using compacts (negotiated interstate <br />agreements ratified by Congress and the legislatures of <br />the participating states) or interstate litigation. The <br />following summarize the relevant interstate compacts <br />and decrees for each river basin. For more information <br />used in this subsection and additional details on the <br />individual compacts and decrees, the reader is referred <br />to Appendix D of the SWSI Report, A Summary of <br />Compacts and Litigation governing Colorado's Use of <br />Interstate Streams (Division of Water Resources [DWR] <br />2000) and the CWCB website at: http://cwcb.state.co.us/ <br />SecD/interstate. htm. <br /> <br />The CWCB actively protects the authority, interests, and <br />rights of the state and its citizens in matters pertaining to <br />interstate waters. The CWCB and other representatives <br />appointed by the Governor are engaged in ongoing <br />discussions with federal agencies and other states about <br />water availability and utilization. <br /> <br />60 Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist v. Shelton <br />Farms, Inc., 187 Colo. 181 (1975). <br /> <br />S:\1177\BASIN REPORTS\NORTH PLATTElS4_NORTH PLATTE. DOC <br /> <br />4.3.1 Nebraska vs. Wyoming 325 U.S. <br />665 (1945) and 345 U.S. 981 <br />( 1953) <br /> <br />The Nebraska vs. Wyoming U.S. Supreme Court Decree <br />equitably apportions water in the North Platte River <br />between Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Those <br />portions of the decree affecting Colorado limit total <br />irrigation in Jackson County to 145,000 acres and <br />17,000 AF of storage for irrigation during anyone <br />irrigation season. It also limits total water exports from <br />the North Platte River in Colorado to no more than <br />60,000 AF during any 10-year period. <br /> <br />4.3.2 Wyoming vs. Colorado, 260 U.S. 1 <br />(1922) and 309 U.S. 572 (1940) <br /> <br />The Wyoming vs. Colorado U.S. Supreme Court Decree <br />establishes the right of Colorado and Wyoming to water <br />in the Laramie River Basin. Those portions of the decree <br />affecting Colorado limit total diversions from the Laramie <br />River in Colorado to a total of 39,750 AF, divided among <br />specific water facilities, including 15,500 AF through the <br />Laramie-Poudre Tunnel; 18,000 AF through the Skyline <br />Ditch; and 4,250 AF through various "meadow land <br />appropriations. " <br /> <br />4.3.3 Sand Creek Memorandum of <br />Agreement (1939 and revised <br />1997) <br />This Memorandum of Agreement between Colorado and <br />Wyoming allocates the waters of Sand Creek between <br />the states in accordance with the priority water rights in <br />each state and provides for certain minimum deliveries to <br />the state line by Colorado, if physically available and <br />needed for irrigation in Wyoming. <br /> <br />CONI <br /> <br />4-9 <br />