|
<br />:\1
<br />
<br />""'J>
<br />Il~
<br />
<br />'O'l}HSl
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />benefit of the use of devel:>ped and return fIT;' 1'r,ters. FJr some
<br />reason, we cannot see the c:.nsistencyof clo.iming tho.t develor'ed and
<br />return flow water is n~turo.l flow wo.ter in 'ne cuse; clniming thut the
<br />law of priority governs in nnJther case in tho fin~l case setting up
<br />the theory tho.t the right tJ use of wuter depends upon the beneficial
<br />use th~t may be made Jf it. If the law of priority is supreme o.s CJn-
<br />tended by Nebrasku in the WYJming ccse; if devGlop~J return flow wo.ter
<br />is n',turo.l flow and thus st:.te water as argued by Nebraska in the "arren
<br />Act case, then the first right :m the river sh.:uld b~ given full use of
<br />the developed w~ter and it sh)uld go down to th t first right when there
<br />is a demn.nd for it. '"e also feel th'ct much of this litig':,tion vril1 be of
<br />little eff"ct when the KeystJne prjcct is ,l~vcloped~nd the river,
<br />with its developed return flow further down the river, has bec)me estab-
<br />lished. lie fGd th:.:t much Jf the ills ccnd complaint of the bwer river
<br />,viII automn.tically be over come when the present development is com-
<br />pleted and th~t there is not tine enough.bef8re th~t development be-
<br />comes an established f:,ct to make much differenc~ in its out come.
<br />As stnted ahove, the P'cthfindcr Irrig':tion Distridt is not cmtributing
<br />to the expenses )f th':t suit.
<br />
<br />~,
<br />
<br />Nebraska-Wyoming, et :.1:
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />The NEobr..:cska vs '.7yorning am\ CJloro.do suit, with the United
<br />St~tes intervening, has been the cause )f cJnsiderable thought and
<br />discussiJn en the part Jf the B,),~,rc' the Pc.st yenr. ;,s we tJld YJU a
<br />year ngo, Mr. Good, counsel for Nebr~ska, h~d requested our district
<br />to furnish l'ta sh )wing eV0ry piece :,f Inn" in th0 district tho,t h:J.d
<br />nJt been irrig,.tcd in the past five ye['..rs [l.,nd. eVGry piece )f l.'1n~'. in
<br />the c'j,strict thc,t hnc not been irrig .,tod for", five year period during
<br />the Po.st tnenty years Jr since the beginning of the prJject. There
<br />c:lUIJ be only "no use fJr such inf)rm".tion anc: that woule. be t'.J attack
<br />the richt,f,ur cistrict to th0 use A SC)ffie .:>f the w,,-ter claimed by
<br />it. Bec-'luse ,)ur riGht is a. .:jYJmint: right, Nebro..sk:!. was shy,ving -:'r
<br />attemptin,;' t~ shm, thc.t cert-.in iyC)ming -,reas Hero not entitled to the
<br />diversiJns th~t they were usin~ o.nd claiming. Our district prep~re~
<br />the infC)rn"tim requested but WJuld not consent to furnish it vC)luntarily
<br />and th0 matter was drJpped.
<br />
<br />;1
<br />
<br />At the hearinG in T Jrringt,m} JU.'Ge Ivers)n, C~_nsel, for the
<br />United Sco.tes toak 0. pasition th ,t we did feel an~ still fecI nay be
<br />against the best inter~st 'af the Praj0ct. ;,t th",t he",rin[ Gaunsel
<br />for th8 United States toC)k th0 position th:\t when the filinc; W',S m.,,:e
<br />for the N:>. th Pl't"" Pr:)jc<:t in 1904 the Unite:l States fileel on all of
<br />the then un_appropriatecl waters of the North Pl::ctte River. That in so
<br />appropriating those waters, they secure a 1904 ri_ht not only for the
<br />North and S )ati1 ~i~e units but :'.lso for the Cnsper-;,lcova project.
<br />'Nyornine now seeus to have joine,l in with that cont0ntion c.nd the present
<br />attarneys representing .'.toninc c.re makin_ tho.t contention. i,tenbers of
<br />the Goshen, GerinG Ft. L:'.rlli"ie and P:'. hfinder Boo.rds and district off jeers
<br />held a meetinG with Ju.cCe Iverson after th-,t hearin,; in Torrington >end
<br />protested his contention. The matter has been discussed from t~e to
<br />time s:i.nee then in Bo::..r<c.: "",,,tings and in joint meetings of our three
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|