My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Adjusting Water Rights Between States
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Adjusting Water Rights Between States
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2015 3:13:06 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 11:07:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
A report from the CWCB Director to the Association of Western State Engineers regarding adjusting water rights between the states.
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Author
Clifford Stone, Director CWCB
Title
Adjusting Water Rights Between States
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
petition for a rule requiring the State of Colorado to show cause why it <br />should not be adjudged in contempt for violation of former decrees in that <br />suit,,restraining diversions of water from the Laramie River.,(259 U.S.. <br />419, 496; 26o U,S, 1; 286 U.S.: 494; 298 U.S. 573). There arose the <br />question of whether the state had the right to control the use and distri -, <br />bution,. with -in its borders, of that portion of the water which was allotted <br />to the State by the earlier decisions of the Court. It was claimed by <br />certain water users within the State of Colorado that the Court had, in <br />addition to making an equitable apportionment of water between the two <br />states,, determined the amount which individual appropriators could take <br />within the State of Colorado.. If this contention had.been sustained, it <br />would have meant that the Supreme Court of the United States exercised <br />its jurisdiction to determine the use and distribution of water within <br />the state irrespective of previous adjudication by decrees of the state <br />court. However,. the Court held in construing its former decisions: <br />" * ** That it was not intended to restrict Colorado in determi)aIng <br />the use of water of the river, according to Colorado laws and <br />adjudications, provided the diversions did not exceed the aggrem . <br />gate amount of 39,750 acre feet to which Colorado was entitled, <br />is clear from the ruling upon another branch of the case,," <br />" * ** The thing which the decree recognizes and confirms is Athe <br />right of the State of Colorado, or of anyone recognized by her <br />as duly entitled there, . . to divert and take4 the water in» <br />cludecT in the designated appropriations ". <br />The Court observed that: <br />" * ** it was not its purpose Ito withdraw water claims dealt with <br />therein from the operation of local laws relating to their trans- <br />fer or to restrict their utilization in ways not affecting the <br />rights of one State and her claimants as against the other State <br />and her claimants.t" <br />w5— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.