7901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fundamental modification of the apportionment scheme settled by the 1945 decree without alleging a change in conditions that would justify the modification. The Court overrules Wyoming's second exception to the Master's stated intention to consider a broad array of downstream interests (including wildlife and its habitat) in ruling on Nebraska's claims that Wyoming's proposed developments on tributaries of the North Platte will deplete the tributaries and disturb the "equitable balance" of the River established in the decree, holding that Nebraska must show "substantial injury" before the Court will modify the decree to enjoin tributary develop- ment, so Nebraska should be able to present evidence of all kinds of injury to satisfy this significant burden. The Court overrules Wyoming's third exception to the Master's recommendation to allow Nebraska to proceed with its challenge to Wyoming's actions on Horse Creek, a tributary to the North Platte. The Court finds that even though Horse Creek is below the apportioned reach of the river, the "territorial scope" of the case extends downstream of the pivotal reach and Nebraska should be allowed to show that Wyoming's actions are threatening to deplete the return flows from Horse Creek that provide a contribution to the North Platte during the irrigation season, a change in conditions that would be sufficient, if proven, to warrant the injunctive relief Nebraska seeks. The Court also overrules Wyoming's exception to the Master's recommendation that Nebraska be allowed to amend its petition to allege that increased groundwater pumping within Wyoming threatens substantial depletion of the natural flow of the river, holding that equity does not preclude Nebraska's claim merely because Nebraska is allowing unregulated pumping within its State, since Wyoming is upstream and has not made a showing that Nebraska's pumping is injuring Wyoming or anyone else. Finally, the Court rules that in asserting that a basis of the 1945 decree was that the United States would adhere to beneficial use limitations in administering storage water contracts, the United States no longer adheres to such limitations and this change has caused or permitted significant injury to Wyoming interests, Wyoming has said enough to state a serious claim that should be allowed to go forward. Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. _, 131 L.Ed.2d 759, 115 S.Ct. _ This original action involves a dispute among Kansas, Colorado and the United States over alleged violations of the Arkansas River Compact (Compact). The Special Master filed a report detailing his findings and recommendations concerning the liability phase of the trial, and both Kansas and Colorado have filed exceptions to those findings and recommendations. In this opinion the Supreme Court agrees with the Special Master's disposition of the liability issues and overrules the parties' exceptions. Regarding Kansas' exceptions, the Supreme Court.holds, in part, that the 30