WSPC00104

• File Number: 8408
• Description: River Basin General Correspondence
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Title: Fourteenth Annual Report, Pathfinder Irrigation District
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

dOl162;

74

.'

bo~rds. On Janu",ry 2nd, Mr. P,"rry wrote Ju:l~'e IversCln :Dintinc 'Jut th:-.t
that fer a nuober of ' years prior to the ~pproval :f the Casper-Alcova
project that conferences Were held tryinc to iron out the differences
that had existed hetween the interests wanting to build that project and
the water users of the lower river who were objectinrr to the buildinc of
the projedt because they believe that the buildinG of the Casper-Alcova
project '",uld deplete the supply of water necessary for this lower area;
that finally whon the proponents of the Casper-~lcova acreed to the
acoeptccnce of an inferior natur~l flow and storai;e rieht, and a:yeed to
accept a 1934 rieht for their pNject and also acreed t_ clUild additbml
stora~~ for their project, objection was withdrawn to the buildine of that
pJrject. Statements of the late Sen~tors K~ndrick.anc Carey were att~ched
shJwin~ th'"t this was the unde rstandinc; in Wyominc c.t th,,-t time. .;e pointed
out that we considered thc.t the United States should abide by the aGreements
Il\D.de at that time. The fvllowinE;' letter has been received by Mr. Parry from
Judee Iverson since our last Board meetine and we have not had the op~ortunity
to stuJy it carefully. It may answer the complaint that we filed with Ju:l[;e
Iverson. It certainly shows that the records arc clear that the Casper-
.,1cov~ was huilt with a distinct understandinG that it was to have an in-
ferior riCht to that of this p~rt of the Project.

liRe N'~ur:l.ska v, :';y,):~tii1~.; and C()l:lra:~v
Uni't;;.d States, Intervener

"Dear Mr. P1'.rry:

"

"This will acknowledce receipt of your letter )f January 2, 1940
in which you express concern recardinc the priority of the C~sour-Alcova
Projt:ct in ll:r''',:.i.ne.

Tile statement to which you refer as havinc; heen made to the
court at the T,)r,'i;1~ton hearing was for the purpose of saving in the
record the legal question involved in the matter of the Government's
priority for its reclamc.tion proGram in the North Pl"tte V,o;licy. 1:hc
point is that in the P~tition for intervention fuled by the United St~tes
in this case, the theory is advanced thd the United St1i.t~s is the owner
of all of the unappropriated waters of the Noeth Pl'tt" River, :md that
when the filinc was made b' the S"cL,.,tary of the Interior in D~cc~'tJt:r 1904,
all of the then unappropri"ted w"ters of the river were reserved and set
aside for the use by the Gov~rnment.

,"

AssunirlC; th:l.t this theory is sound ( and this is for the Su "!'.,de
Court ur the Unit en St'lt"c ultimately to detereune), it may approprl,o,tely
be said that there is only one priority f~ ~~r as the UnlL"G St~t~s is
concerned, namely, the priority of Dccc""cber 1904, :md thClt every filing
subsequently J1,",de by a "rivate individual is subordin".te thereto. It 5d;ms
entirely consistent with this theory to say th~t any additions of reclaimable
lands alon~ the rivvr automatically come ,vithin the purview of the named
priority.

If the Suprene Court shouU'dp.cicce the lCi.;al issue involved in
favor of the United States, then the question of relative richts of the
several units of the GJvcrnment's developnent is for determin1'.tion by con-
sideration of the contracts nade between the Government and such units.
In this <:onnection your attenti.Jn is called to the provision in ,lrtiele 9

:3