FLOOD09973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I (3 ) Annual f'lOVi at the Castlewood Dams ite, estimated by the U. S. BUREAU OF RECr,:.iiATION REPOllT(CONTfD.) CHERRY CREET; PROJECT (COHT tD) in the oase of the United stl.l.tes v.,Tilley ( State Engineer of Nebraska) in the U. S. District Court, District of Nebraska, North Platte Division, In Equity No. 99; wherein the Court denied the olaim of the United States, holdinr, (in substance), That drainage, seepage and return flaw waters, x x x are publio waters of the state, to be distributed in accordanoe with the laws of the State upon the prinoiple of priority of appropriation. !Iemol A oopy of aU prooeedings in the above mentioned oase (deoided Maroh 30, 1939) will be found in the lifebraska v. 1fyoming and Colorado files, being Nebraska Exhib it No. 59.3. Bureau at 7,965, aore-feet, diminished by ditoh diversions belovi Sullivan Barrier and losses (reservoir and bank storage). gives the annual usable flow of substantially 7,000 aore-feet. Storage yield of the Castlewood Reservoir (5,700 aore-feet annually) plus direot flovi diversions (1,.300 aore.feet) make up the usable supply. However, those ditohes whioh, under their exist~ng direot fl~r rights have diverted 1,300 aore-feet of water annually, should not be obligated to repay the same pro-rata share of the reservoir oosts as other ditches or nevr lands heretofore reoeiving no water, but which under the Bureau plan will reoeive a full supply. (4) It is doubtful if the net yield of the reservoir oan be expeoted to exoeed its original deoreed oapaoity. Colorado laws prohibit more than one filling a year. A priority as of today oould expeot very little storage in oompetition with established downstream storage rights -14- -