|
claimed that any equitable distribution which was made should extend to all irrigated lands as far east as
<br />Grand Island, Neb. It is now conceded that the lands east of Bridgeport, Neb., which is some sixty miles
<br />from the Wyoming- Nebraska state line, can be reasonably satisfied out of local supplies. Hence we are not
<br />concerned in this case with that section.
<br />In the section west of Bridgeport, there are twelve canals exclusive of the Ramshorn relevant to the present
<br />problem. Their requirements are 132,420 acre feet; their demand on the main river is 102,810 acre feet, the
<br />balance being obtained from interceptions of drains, return flows, and tributary streams. The Special Master
<br />concluded that local supplies even during the drought period were adequate to take care of the needs of
<br />these canals without calling upon up -river water. Some shortages occurred, caused for example by
<br />excessive use by some canals at the expense of others or by the withdrawal of water from the section to
<br />supply senior canals below. It would seem that the construction and operation of the Kingsley and
<br />Sutherland Reservoirs would largely eliminate the latter condition. And water passing Tri -State Dam and
<br />usable in the Tri -State to Bridgeport section is substantial -the mean divertible flow for the irrigation season
<br />in the 1931 -1940 period being 81,700 acre feet. Over half of this occurred in May and June; very little in
<br />August and September.
<br />III.
<br />Motion to Dismiss. As we have noted, Colorado moves to dismiss the proceeding. She asserts that the
<br />pleadings and evidence both indicate that she has not injured nor presently threatens to injure any
<br />downstream water user. She emphasizes the large increase since 1910 in acreage under irrigation in
<br />Wyoming and Nebraska as compared [325 U.S. 589, 608] with the increase in Colorado. She asserts there
<br />is a surplus of water in the stream, as evidenced by the fact that during the recent drought or dry cycle the
<br />Kendrick Project in Wyoming and the Tri- County Project in Nebraska have been constructed, indicating
<br />that the sponsors considered that the available water supply was not entirely used by existing projects. And
<br />she emphasizes that during the drought there was a divertible flow passing Tri -State Dam during the
<br />irrigation season. The argument is that the case is not of such serious magnitude and the damage is not so
<br />fully and clearly proved as to warrant the intervention of this Court under our established practice. State of
<br />Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 521 , 26 S.Ct. 268, 269; State of Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383, 393 ,
<br />394 S., 64 S.Ct. 176, 180, 181. The argument is that the potential threat of injury, representing as it does
<br />only a possibility for the indefinite future, is no basis for a decree in an interstate suit since we cannot issue
<br />declaratory decrees. State of Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 , 462 -464, 51 S.Ct. 522, 528, 529, and
<br />cases cited.
<br />We fully recognize those principles. But they do not stand in the way of an entry of a decree in this case.
<br />The evidence supports the finding of the Special Master that the dependable natural flow of the river during
<br />the irr gation season has long been over - appropriated. A genuine controversy exists. The States have not
<br />been able to settle their differences by compact. The areas involved are and or semi -arid. Water in
<br />dependable amounts is essential to the maintenance of the vast agricultural enterprises established on the
<br />various sections of the river. The dry cycle which has continued over a decade has precipitated a clash of
<br />interests which between sovereign powers could be traditionally settled only by diplomacy or war. The
<br />original jurisdiction of this Court is one of the alternative methods provided by the Framers of our
<br />Constitution. State of Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241 , 21 S.Ct. 331, 343; Georgia v. Tennessee
<br />Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230, 237, 27 S.Ct. 618, 619, 11 Ann. Cas. 488. The [325 U.S. 589, 609] Kendrick
<br />Project plainly is an existing threat to senior appropriators down stream. As we have noted, it is junior to
<br />practically every appropriation on the river between Alcova and the Tri -State Dam. Since 1930 there would
<br />have been no water for it if it were operated on a priority basis. And in view of the general position taken
<br />by Wyoming with respect to Nebraska priorities, it cannot be assumed that the Kendrick Project would be
<br />regulated for the benefit of senior appropriators in Nebraska. Neither Wyoming nor Colorado has ever
<br />recognized any extension of priorities across state lines. They have never limited or regulated diversions by
<br />their appropriators in subordination to the senior appropriators of a down - stream State. Out -of- priority
<br />diversions by Colorado have had an adverse effect downstream. We do not know their full extent; but we
<br />do know that Colorado appropriators junior to Pathfinder consume about 30,000 acre feet a year and that
<br />Pathfinder has never been filled since 1930 and has always been in need of water. This alone negatives the
<br />absence of present injury. The fact that on the average there is some water passing Tri -State Dam unused is
<br />no answer. While over half of that excess amount occurred in May and June, there was comparatively little
<br />in August and September. Moreover, we are dealing here with the problems of natural flow. The critical
<br />
|