Laserfiche WebLink
Oregon, 297 U.S. 517,526 , 56 S.Ct. 540, 544. Since Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska are appropriation <br />States, that principle would seem to be equally applicable here. <br />That does not mean that there must be a literal application of the priority rule. We stated in State of <br />Colorado v. Kansas, supra, that in determining whether one State is 'using, or threatening to use, more than <br />its equitable share of the benefits of a stream, all of the factors which create equities in favor of one state or <br />the other must be weighed as of the date when the controversy is mooted.' 320 U.S. page 394, 64 S.Ct. 181. <br />That case did not involve a controversy between two appropriation States. But if an allocation between <br />appropriation States is to be just and equitable, strict adherence to the priority rule may not be possible. For <br />exampl , the economy of a region may have been established on the basis of junior appropriations. So far as <br />possible those established uses should be protected though strict application of the priority rule might <br />jeopardize them. Apportionment calls for the exercise of an informed judgment on a consideration of many <br />factors. Priority of appropriation is the guiding principle. But physical and climatic conditions, the <br />consumptive use of water in the several sections of the river, the character and rate of return flows, the <br />extent of established uses, the availability of storage water, the practical effect of wasteful uses on <br />downstream areas, the damage to upstream areas as compared to the benefits to downstream areas if a <br />limitation is imposed on the former- these are all relevant factors. They are merely an illustrative not an <br />exhaustive catalogue. They indicate the nature of the problem of apportionment and the delicate adjustment <br />of interests which must be made. <br />Practical considerations of this order underlie Nebraska's concession that the priority rule should not be <br />strictly applied to appropriations in Colorado, though [325 U.S. 589, 619] some are junior to the priorities <br />of appropriators in Wyoming and Nebraska. As the Special Master points out the flowage time of water <br />from North Park to Bridgeport, Nebraska is between two and three weeks. If a canal in North Park were <br />closed to relieve the shortage of a senior appropriator in Nebraska, it would be highly speculative whether <br />the water would reach the Nebraska appropriator in time or whether the closing of the Colorado canal <br />would work more hardship there than it would bestow benefits in Nebraska. Moreover, there is loss of <br />water in transit from the upper to the downstream sections, increasing with the distance. The lower <br />appropriator thus receives less than the upper appropriator loses. And there is evidence that a riverwide <br />priority system would disturb and disrupt long established uses. <br />Nebraska, however, urges that priority of appropriation interstate be adopted from the Alcova Reservoir <br />east and more particularly from the Whalen diversion dam east. She points out that there is a large acreage <br />of Nebraska land which is irrigated by canals diverting at Whalen. There are four canals diverting in <br />Wyoming and irrigating land entirely or in part in Nebraska - Mitchell, Interstate, Ft. Laramie and French. <br />For example, the diversion point for Mitchell is in Wyoming though all the land it serves is in Nebraska. <br />Nebraska has maintained that diversions of that canal should be regulated to observe the priorities of senior <br />Nebraska canals including Tri- State. Wyoming was willing to regulate her upstream junior appropriators <br />for the benefit of Mitchell provided the water go to Mitchell and not be used for Tri -State which is senior to <br />both Mitchell and certain Wyoming appropriators. 13 Nebraska therefore urges an interstate allocation <br />which would require junior appropriators in Wyo- [325 U.S. 589, 620] ming to respect not only Mitchell's <br />priorities but also those of Tri -State and other Nebraska canals in this section of the river. <br />The United States takes substantially the same position on this matter as Nebraska except that it argues that <br />a priority allocation interstate be confined to that area between Whalen and Tri -State Dam. <br />Wyoming contends for a system of mass allocation between the States, saying that no attempt can or should <br />be made in this proceeding to determine the priorities interstate of the various appropriators in each State. <br />The proposal of Wyoming envisages distribution of natural flow and storage water indiscriminately as a <br />common fund to all users. It is based on the theory that there is a sufficiency of water for everyone. <br />The decree recommended by the Special Master departs from the theory of allocation advanced by t e <br />parties. In recommending his apportionment the Special Master did not rest on the long -time average flow <br />of the river. We have discussed the drought which has persisted in this river basin since 1930. No one <br />knows whether it has run its course or whether it represents a new norm. There is no reliable basis for <br />prediction. But a controbersy exists; and the decree which is entered must deal with conditions as they <br />obtain today. If they substantially change, the decree can be adjusted to meet the new conditions. But the <br />decree which is fashioned must be based, as the special master recognized, on the dependable flow. State of <br />Wyoming v. Colorado, supra. In that case the Court pointed out that the average of all years was far from <br />