Court: Supreme Court of the United States; May 20, 1940; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The State of Wyoming filed a petition against the State of Colorado, seeking a ruling for Colorado to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt for violating a prior court decree regarding water diversions from the Laramie River. Wyoming alleged that Colorado had diverted 39,865.43 acre-feet of water from May 1 to June 18, 1939, exceeding the 39,750 acre-feet allocated by the decree. Wyoming claimed that after closing the headgates on June 19, 1939, Colorado reopened them on June 22, 1939, diverting an additional 12,673 acre-feet until July 11, 1939, and specifically noted that 24,775 acre-feet were diverted from meadowland ditches beyond the allowed 4,250 acre-feet.
In response, Colorado requested evidence to assess return flow contributions to the Laramie River from these diversions, arguing that excess diversions were in line with Colorado law and that Wyoming had acquiesced to these actions without suffering harm. Colorado asserted that its officials would comply with the water allocation by closing the headgates once the total of 39,750 acre-feet had been diverted in any given year. The court granted Wyoming permission to file its petition and directed Colorado to respond accordingly, while also noting procedural issues regarding the representation of Colorado by the Governor and Attorney General.
Colorado argues that diverting more than 4,250 acre-feet for meadowland appropriations should not violate the existing decree if the total diversions in the state do not exceed the allowed amount. A declaratory judgment from the District Court of Laramie County, entered on February 2, 1939, in the case of Adelrick Benziger v. Water Supply Storage Company, supports this position. The state court determined that the rulings of the court in a previous case only addressed the relative rights of Wyoming and Colorado regarding the Laramie River's waters, without intending to interfere with Colorado's local water laws or appropriations. Thus, as long as Colorado’s total diversions do not surpass 39,750 acre-feet, they are governed by Colorado law.
The court ruled that meadowland appropriators and other defendants could divert water according to their priorities until they collectively reached 39,750 acre-feet, at which point all headgates had to be closed for the remainder of the season. A historical review found that a 1911 lawsuit examined the rights to divert Laramie River water, concluding in 1922 that both states operated under the doctrine of appropriation, and their respective rights should be determined by priority. The findings indicated that the total available water supply was 288,000 acre-feet, insufficient to satisfy all Wyoming and proposed Colorado appropriations. The court identified specific Colorado appropriations, including 18,000 acre-feet for the Skyline Ditch and 4,250 acre-feet for meadowland, which were established before other claims. The final decree limited Colorado’s diversion through the Laramie-Poudre project to 15,500 acre-feet annually while preserving the rights to the specified appropriations.
The decree was modified to allow Colorado to divert an additional 2,000 acre-feet for the Wilson Supply Ditch, bringing Colorado's total allocation to 39,750 acre-feet. In 1931, Wyoming filed a lawsuit against Colorado, claiming excessive water diversions and seeking protection of its rights under the previous decree. Wyoming requested accurate measurement of water diversion and an injunction against excessive diversions. The motion to dismiss was denied, affirming that the previous decree defined the respective rights of both states regarding water diversion from the Laramie River and its tributaries.
In a 1936 decision, Wyoming argued that actual diversions exceeded the decree's limit of 4,250 acre-feet for meadowland appropriations, with diversions reported between 36,000 and 62,000 acre-feet. Colorado contended that most of this water returned to the stream through drainage and percolation, asserting compliance with the decree. The Court noted that the 4,250 acre-feet was deemed sufficient for proper application of water and acknowledged that wasteful practices led to significant evaporation and uncertainty regarding the water's return to the stream. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the decree addressed the volume of water at the diversion point, leading to an injunction against diversions exceeding the established limits.
Wyoming's request for measuring devices to track diversions was acknowledged as challenging, with the Court hoping for cooperative solutions between the states. Wyoming was permitted to seek further applications if necessary. Despite the injunction on meadowland diversions beyond 4,250 acre-feet, it was made clear that Colorado was not restricted in its overall use of water, provided it did not exceed its total allocation of 39,750 acre-feet.
The Court found that Colorado's diversions from the Skyline Ditch exceeded the allowed amount; however, diversions from other sources were less, so the total diversions did not surpass the aggregate allowance for the State. The Court acknowledged Colorado's legal ability to permit diversions exceeding individual appropriations as long as the overall total remained within accredited limits. Both Colorado and Wyoming allow for the transfer of water rights and changes in usage, provided they do not harm other appropriators. The Court clarified that it did not intend to restrict local laws governing water rights transfers or their use, as long as they did not infringe on the rights of claimants from either state.
The diversions from the transmountain ditches were made with the consent of water rights owners, equating to a formal transfer of rights, causing no injury to Wyoming or its claimants. The Court concluded that the Skyline Ditch diversions adhered to the decree. The ruling's principle also applies to meadowland appropriations, where returns to the stream do not violate Colorado's allowed diversions. The Court stated that as long as Colorado does not divert more than 39,750 acre-feet annually from the Laramie River, the decree is not substantially violated.
In 1939, Colorado diverted 39,865.43 acre-feet and subsequently closed the headgates. However, after reopening them, an additional 12,673 acre-feet was diverted, exceeding the allowable amount despite Wyoming's objections. Although Colorado claimed Wyoming was not harmed, the Court emphasized that exceeding the stipulated limit constitutes a violation of the decree, and Colorado cannot contest Wyoming's rights in light of this breach.
Wyoming's petition to hold Colorado in contempt for exceeding water diversion limits is denied due to Colorado's defense that Wyoming acquiesced to the excess diversions during the 1939 season. Colorado presented affidavits indicating that Wyoming officials expressed no objection to continued diversions, citing that much of the diverted water returned to the Laramie River for downstream use. Wyoming countered with affidavits demanding adherence to the decree. The court noted a period of uncertainty and potential misunderstanding regarding the water diversions, which may mitigate Colorado's actions. The ruling emphasizes that future diversions must comply strictly with the decree to avoid misinterpretation. Costs are to be shared equally between both parties.
