Wyoming v. Colorado
Headline: Interstate water dispute: Court denies Wyoming’s contempt petition against Colorado for 1939 overdiversions while reaffirming Colorado must limit annual Laramie River withdrawals to 39,750 acre-feet and split costs.
Holding:
- Requires Colorado to keep annual Laramie River diversions within 39,750 acre-feet measured at headgates.
- Denies Wyoming’s contempt claim for 1939 overdiversions, so no contempt penalty entered.
- Costs of this petition are to be equally divided between the two States.
Summary
Background
The State of Wyoming asked the Court to hold Colorado in contempt for allowing excessive diversions from the Laramie River in 1939. Earlier rulings had allocated Colorado 39,750 acre-feet per year, including specific amounts for Skyline and meadowland ditches. Wyoming says Colorado diverted 39,865.43 acre-feet by June 19 and then reopened headgates from June 22 to July 11, adding 12,673 acre-feet more. Colorado argues some meadowland water returns to the river and relied on a Colorado state court judgment about local water rights.
Reasoning
The Court reviewed its prior orders and prior rulings that the decree measures water at the point of diversion, not the uncertain portion that returns. The record shows Colorado did divert more than the allotted total in 1939, but Colorado’s main defense was that Wyoming acquiesced or that there was room for misunderstanding about meadowland returns. Considering the communications and affidavits, the Court found enough uncertainty to excuse an immediate contempt judgment. The Court emphasized Colorado remains bound by the prior order and cannot permissibly exceed the 39,750 acre-foot limit.
Real world impact
The petition to find Colorado in contempt for the 1939 diversions was denied, and the Court divided costs equally between the States. The opinion clarifies that Colorado must keep its total diversions within the fixed annual limit measured at diversion points, and that future misunderstandings should not excuse breaches. The ruling stops short of punishment for 1939 but reinforces the State obligations going forward.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?