BOARD02241 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

469 I owners and Skyline Canal owners for the purpose of enjoining any use of water from the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel in excess of the amounts needed for existing uses. That case was determined in 1922, at which time the Supreme Court entered a decree holding that priorities were approximately as I have outlined,and that, after leaving enough water in the river to supply the needs of the various Eeadbw; land groups in each state plus the appropriation of the Wheat land District, there remained a flow in the Laramie River of only 15,000 acre- feet per year of water subject to diversion. The Court held that since Colorado and Wyoming were both prior appropriation states, the waters of the Laramie River could be' divided equitably between those states upon the basis of priority of appropriation. "That decree made the total apportionment to Colorado 39,750 acre-feet per year, all the remainder going to Wyoming. Operations under that decree, for the 8 years from 1922 to 1930, proceeded moderately smoothly but not without some friction between Wyoming and Colorado claims. The hay ranchers along the Laramie River in Colorado continued to take out of the River normal amounts they had been taking in the past-- very substantially more water than is used consumptively--and they diverted what they were entitled to according to the time rates under their various priorities. It was assumed that this amount permitted headgate diversions much greater than the 4,200 acre- feet per year mentioned in the decree. I "The Wyoming ranchers and the owners of water under the Wheatland Canal saw this large diversion of water going on in the hay meadows and as is always the case on any fully appropriated river, they felt they could use more water. They turned to the decree which allotted 4,200 acre-feet per year to those hay meadows and raised the contention that it meant headgate diversion rather than consumptive use; so they re-opened the case and brought a