Laserfiche WebLink
. , <br />The Court then stated: "In addition, Nebraska may be unable to prove that operation of the <br />Deer Creek Project will cause it substantial injury. Such proof is necessary, as we have <br />indicated, because the decree does not currently restrict Wyoming's zcse of Deer Creek, and a <br />new injacnction wotild constitute a modification of the decree." Id. at 601 (emphasis added). <br />In 1995, the Court confirmed that the case was now one to modify the decree. After <br />Nebraska II, Nebraska and Wyoming sought leave to amend their claims to conform to the <br />1993 decision. The Special Master's Third Interim Report recommended that the Court allow <br />Nebraska to substitute three of the four counts of its amended petition. The Supreme Court <br />again considered exceptions to the Special Master's recommendations. Nebraska v. Wyoming, <br />515 U.S. 1(1995) (Nebraska III). The Court's treatment of Nebraska's Counts I and III reflects <br />its understanding of Nebraska's proposed amendments. In the Court's words, "Counts I and III <br />of Nebraslca's Amended Petition would have us modify the decree to enjoin proposed <br />developments by Wyoming on the North Platte's tributaries on the theory that these will deplete <br />the tributaries' contributions to the mainstem, and hence upset 'the equitable balance of the <br />North Platte River established in the Decree."' Nebraska III, 515 U.S. at 11-12 (citations <br />omitted). <br />In discussing Counts I and III, the Court went on to say "Nebraska II makes it clear that <br />moditication of the decree (as by enjoining developments on tributaries) will follow only upon <br />a'balancing of equities,' and that Nebraska will have to make a showing of 'substantial injury' <br />before we will grant it such relief." Id. at 12 (citations omitted). As Wyoming points out, the <br />4