Nebraska v. Wyoming

1995-05-30

Headline: Water-sharing dispute proceeds as Court upholds Special Master, allows new state claims over tributary projects and groundwater pumping, and permits Wyoming to challenge federal reservoir management.

Holding: The Court overruled all parties' exceptions to the Special Master's Third Interim Report, allowing several amended claims for Nebraska and Wyoming while rejecting attempts to relitigate the 1945 apportionment.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to seek injunctions against upstream projects that may reduce river flows.
Permits a state to challenge federal reservoir management affecting water deliveries.
Prevents wholesale relitigation of the 1945 water apportionment without changed conditions.

Topics: interstate water disputes, river apportionment, federal reservoir management, groundwater pumping, environmental impacts

Summary

Background

Nebraska (the downstream State) sued Wyoming in this long-running dispute over how to share water from the North Platte River. A 1945 Court decree split the river's irrigation-season flows, giving about three quarters to Nebraska and one quarter to Wyoming. In 1986 Nebraska returned, alleging new Wyoming projects and groundwater pumping were reducing flows to Nebraska. The Special Master reviewed proposed amendments to each State's pleadings, recommended which would go forward, and the parties filed objections.

Reasoning

The central question was which new claims fit within the narrow scope of an original case between States and whether they alleged changes in conditions sufficient to revisit the 1945 allocation. The Court applied a stricter gatekeeping standard and agreed with most of the Special Master's choices. It rejected Wyoming's attempt to convert the 1945 percentage sharing into a cap tied to beneficial use, because that would relitigate the apportionment without a showing of changed circumstances. The Court allowed Nebraska to pursue claims that Wyoming's tributary projects, Horse Creek work, and increased groundwater pumping may deplete flows, and Wyoming could press a cross-claim that federal reservoir management and contract administration have undermined the decree, but limited inquiry to effects on the decree rather than every contract detail.

Real world impact

The ruling lets states and federal managers develop evidence and seek injunctions about specific projects, groundwater pumping, and federal reservoir releases that may change how much water reaches downstream irrigators, wildlife, and towns. It does not decide the merits; parties must still prove substantial injury before any injunction or change to the decree will occur. The Court warned not to use this proceeding to reargue the 1945 apportionment wholesale.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas joined most of the opinion but would have required Wyoming to bring its cross-claim against the United States in a federal district court rather than in this Court, viewing that claim as enforcement of contracts and statutes not properly resolved here.