We have already noted the exceptional features of this section -the great concentration of demand in a short,
<br />compact area, the distinctly interstate scope and character of water distribution, with Wyoming
<br />appropriations serving Nebraska uses, with the dependence of Nebraska canals on Wyoming diversions,
<br />with the joint use of canals to serve both States. There has been no effective interstate administration. The
<br />need to treat the section as an administrative unit without regard to state lines seems apparent. The Special
<br />Master concluded that the most feasible method of apportionment would be a distribution of natural flow
<br />on a percentage of daily flow basis.
<br />If a division of flow were made according to total acreage, total requirements, or acreage or requirements of
<br />senior and junior appropriators, it would be as follows: [325 U.S. 589, 641] [] Wyoming Nebraska[]
<br />Total Acreage 27% 73% Total Requirement in Acre feet 23% 77% Total Senior Acreage 24% 76% Total
<br />Junior Acreage 28% 72% Total Acre feet Requirement, Senior Acreage 22% 78% Total Acre feet
<br />Requirement, Junior Acreage 23% 77% []
<br />If the river flow is separated according to priority groups, water values expressed in second feet, and it is
<br />assumed that each canal diverts, in order of priority, the maximum limit of one second foot for each 70
<br />acres, the result is as follows:
<br />Acreage Acre Feet Priority Basis Basis Flow Basis Percentages 24 % -76% 22 % -78% Wyo. Neb. Wyo. Neb.
<br />Wyo. Neb. Wyo. Neb. []
<br />1. Up to 103 second feet 103 0 100 0 24 79 23 80 2.103 to 1.027 (924) 0 924 222 702 203 721
<br />Cumulative Totals 103 924 10 90 246 702 203 7213. 1,027 to 1,121 (94) 94 0 23 71
<br />Cumulative Totals 197 924 18 82 269 852 247 874 4. 1,121 to
<br />1,328 (207) 0 207 50 157 46 161 Cumulative Totals 197 1,131 15 85
<br />319 1,009 293 1, 035 5. 1.328 to 1,494 (166) 166 0 40 126 37 129
<br />Cumulative Totals 363 1,13124 76 359 1,135 330 1, 164 6. 1,494 TO 1,513 (19) 0 19 5 14 4 15
<br />Cumulative Totals 363 1,150 24 76 364 1,149 334 1, 179 7. 1,513 TO 1,526 13 0
<br />3 103 10 _ _ _ _ _ Cumulative Totals 376 1,150 25 57 367 1,159 337 1, 189 28-
<br />72% 23 % -77% 8. 1,526 to 4,382 (2858) 801 2,057 28 72 690 2,168 629 2, 229 - - - - --
<br />Grand Totals 1,177 3,207 27 73 1,057 3,327 966 3,41 4,384 4,384 4,384 27 % -73% 27 % -73%
<br />1 to 8 inclusive 1177 3207 27 73 1184 3200 1008 3376 [325 U.S. 589,
<br />642] It is thus apparent that whether a division be proportioned to total acreage or to tota diversion
<br />requirements or be made on a strict priority basis, there would be no substantial difference except as to the
<br />first 1500 second feet. The maximum difference as to other water would be 6 %.
<br />Wyoming argues for a mass allocation, e.g. 705,000 acre feet to be allocated to Nebraska for diversion in
<br />this section during the irrigation season for Nebraska lands. The Special Master rejected that method. He
<br />concluded that it was based on an assumption of dependability of flow which would be bound to result in
<br />injustice to one or other of the States; that it apportioned not only natural flow but also storage water, the
<br />disposition of which is governed by contracts. We have already considered Wyoming's exception that
<br />storage water should have been included in the allocation. We have also considered the other phases of her
<br />argument in favor of mass allocation. We repeat that the inadequacy of the supply is too clear to permit
<br />adoption of Wyoming's formula.
<br />The United States and Nebraska claim that the adoption of a priority schedule in this section would achieve
<br />the most equitable results. On a 25- 75 percentage basis, Nebraska would get 75 second feet out of the first
<br />100, to none of which she would be entitled in times of an extreme low flow; Wyoming would get 225
<br />second feet out of the next 900 to none of which she would be entitled on a priority basis. A priority basis
<br />would only coincide with the percentage basis when the supply available was 400 second feet or 1500
<br />second feet. If the supply were 800 second feet, a priority basis would give Wyoming 103 second feet and
<br />Nebraska the remaining 697 second feet. On the 25 -75 percentage basis, Wyoming would receive 200
<br />second feet and Nebraska 600 second feet. It is argued that the unfairness of the proposed apportionment is
<br />demonstrated by the record of the low flow of the river in this section during the irrigation season in 1931-
<br />1940 period. [325 U.S. 589, 643] Thus in 1932 the flow never rose above 1500 second feet after August
<br />10th. In the 1934 season it rose above 1500 second feet only once after June 10th. And in the 1936 season it
<br />
|