Nebraska v. Wyoming (Colorado, Impleaded Defendant, and the United States, Intervenor)

1953-06-15
Share:

Headline: Interstate water dispute: Court approves agreed changes to reservoir storage and river-sharing rules, expanding Glendo Reservoir limits and pausing Colorado’s right to seek decree amendments for five years.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Raises a key storage figure from 135,000 to 145,000 in the decree.
  • Allows Glendo Reservoir to store up to 40,000 acre-feet of natural flow annually.
  • Prevents Colorado from seeking decree changes for five years starting June 15, 1953.
Topics: water rights, reservoir storage, interstate water allocation, irrigation water

Summary

Background

Several Western states and the federal government agreed to change a 1945 court decree that governs how water from the North Platte River and its reservoirs is shared and used. The parties filed a stipulation on January 14, 1953 asking the Court to modify the old decree. The change replaces a numerical figure in the decree, adds rules about how the new Glendo Dam and Reservoir may be used, and revises how storage, priority of reservoir use, and evaporation losses are computed.

Reasoning

The Court was asked simply to approve the parties’ joint agreement and to enter the proposed modifications. The Court granted the joint motion and approved the stipulation, adopting the parties’ changes into the decree. Key amendments include substituting “145,000” for “135,000,” adding paragraphs that govern claims under the 1937 Act, fixing the order of priority among Pathfinder, Guernsey, Seminoe, Alcova and Glendo reservoirs, and spelling out Glendo’s storage limits and allowable uses.

Real world impact

The order sets who can store and use river water and how losses from evaporation and river carriage are calculated. It limits Colorado from asking the Court to change the decree for five years starting June 15, 1953. The rules affect irrigation water deliveries to Nebraska and Wyoming lands, how Glendo Reservoir may hold and use certain natural flow and flood waters, and operational priorities among the listed reservoirs.

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?

Related Cases