Laserfiche WebLink
[ Footnote 22 ] 1148200 <br />[ Footnote 23 ] 1500800 <br />[ Footnote 24 ] 1489900 <br />[ Footnote 25 ] 1244700 <br />[ Footnote 26 ] 1776500 <br />[ Footnote 27 ] 1456200 <br />1928 1725400 <br />[ Footnote 29 ] 1902700 1930 1072800 <br />[ Footnote 31 ] 706300 <br />[ Footnote 32 ] 1506600 <br />[ Footnote 33 ] 1149500 <br />[ Footnote 34 ] 382000 <br />[ Footnote 35 ] 696200 <br />[ Footnote 36 ] 1045600 <br />[ Footnote 37 ] 1130600 <br />[ Footnote 38 ] 1334900 <br />[ Footnote 39 ] 698200 1940 569800 <br />[ Footnote 8 ] Consumptive use represents the difference between water diverted and water which returns <br />to the stream after use for irrigation. <br />[ Footnote 9 ] The excess or deficiency for each of those years is indicated by the following: <br />1931 + 113,300 1932 + 352,500 1933 + 465,100 1934 - 515,400 1935 - 157,000 1936 + 5,480 1937 + <br />225,350 1938 + 143,150 1939 + 66,050 1940 - 382,080 <br />[ Footnote 11 ] The right of the United States as storer and carrier is not necessarily exhausted when it <br />delivers the water to grantees under its irrigation projects. Thus in Ide v. United States, 263 U.S. 497 , 44 <br />S.Ct. 182, the right of the United States was held to extend to water which resulted from seepage from the <br />irrigated lands under its project and which was not susceptible of private appropriation under local law. <br />[ Footnote 12 ] State of Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 , 27 S.Ct. 655; State of Missouri v. Illinois, 180 <br />U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331. <br />[ Footnote 13 ] That controversy between the States is partly reflected in State v. Mitchell Irrigation <br />District, 129 Neb. 586, 262 N.W. 543, and Mitchell Irrigation District v. Whiting, 59 Wyo. 52, 136 P.2d <br />502. <br />