Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />"Nebraska redefines 'enforce' to mean 'modify,"' id. at 6, and argued that the Special Master had <br />erred by "confusing this action to enforce the existing Decree with one before the Court under <br />the'changed conditions' or'reopener' provision of the Decree," id. at 10. <br />Wyoming made a similar argument: <br />r <br />According to Wyoming, although the Court has jurisdiction to modify the decree <br />under Paragraph XIII, Nebraska obtained leave to file its petition on the <br />assurance that the case would involve only enforcement of existing rights. In <br />Wyoming's view, Nebraska subsequently, and improperly, transformed the case <br />into a request for recognition of new rights -- in essence, into a request for <br />another equitable apportionment. <br />Nebraska II, 507 U.S. at 590-91. <br />The Court rejected this argument, saying "We do not read the pleadings as narrowly as <br />does Wyoming .... We therefore decline the invitation, at this late date, to restrict the scope of <br />the litigation solely to enforcement of rights determined in the prior proceedings." Id. at 591- <br />92. <br />At the same time as the Court recognized the modification claims, it ruled against <br />Nebraska on her enforcement claims relating to the Laramie River and Deer Creek. First, the <br />Court stated: "[W]e agree [with the Special Master] that the evidence, most fairly read, <br />indicates that the Court did not decide the fate of the excess Laramie waters in 1945, .... <br />Because the NoYth Platte decree gives Nebraska no rights to Laramie waters, affording <br />Nebraska injunctive relief would constitute a modification of the decree." Id. at 597 (emphasis <br />added). <br />3