Nebraska v. Wyoming
Headline: Court enforces 1945 North Platte water decree, upholds federal storage rights for Nebraska’s Inland Lakes, limits broad changes to interstate water shares without clear proof of substantial injury.
Holding: The Court overruled exceptions, granted Nebraska and the United States summary judgment that the Inland Lakes share a December 6, 1904 priority and may store 46,000 acre-feet, granted partial relief on canal diversion limits, and denied most other summary judgments.
- Confirms Bureau’s right to store 46,000 acre-feet in Inland Lakes with 1904 priority.
- Limits reopening the decree: new projects require proof of substantial injury to change rights.
- Clarifies the decree does not impose absolute ceilings on Nebraska canal diversions.
Summary
Background
This dispute involves Nebraska, Wyoming, neighboring Colorado, and the federal government over who may use water from the North Platte River. The Court previously divided river flows in a 1945 decree. Nebraska returned in 1986 asking the Court to enforce the decree and stop projects upstream that it said threatened its water share. A Special Master handled discovery and recommended which summary judgment motions should win or lose.
Reasoning
The Court first explained the difference between enforcing an existing right and asking to change the old decree. It held that some questions can be decided as enforcement matters, while new claims that would change who gets what require a higher showing of substantial injury. Relying on the older record, the Court ruled that the Inland Lakes share the 1904 priority and that the federal Bureau of Reclamation may store 46,000 acre-feet there (including temporary winter storage in two upstream reservoirs). The Court also gave Nebraska partial relief by clarifying that the decree does not impose absolute ceilings on canal diversions in the pivotal reach.
Real world impact
The decision protects longstanding Bureau storage practices and limits how easily states can reopen the original apportionment. Developers on the Laramie and Deer Creek tributaries were mostly denied immediate relief; any future challenge about new projects must show real, substantial harm before the decree will be changed. Many other contested claims were left for further factual development rather than resolved now.
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?