Nebraska v. Wyoming
Headline: Court grants amendment limiting how much Wyoming land can be irrigated using North Platte River water and connected groundwater upstream of Guernsey Reservoir, affecting seasonal diversion caps for irrigators.
Holding: The Court granted a joint amendment and ordered section 11(c) replaced to limit intentional irrigation to specified acre caps using North Platte River water and connected groundwater.
- Caps how many acres may be intentionally irrigated using North Platte River water and connected groundwater.
- Counts a field only once when it gets water from multiple sources.
- Excludes the Kendrick Project from the acreage caps.
Summary
Background
A joint motion asked the Court to change section 11(c) of the Modified North Platte Decree. The amendment text replaces the decree’s first two sentences. The decree governs diversion or permitting the diversion of water from the North Platte River and its tributaries, including water from hydrologically connected groundwater wells, upstream of Guernsey Reservoir, for intentional irrigation. The new language limits intentional irrigation during any one irrigation season using those waters. It sets two numerical caps: more than 169,100 acres for land in Wyoming above Pathfinder Dam, and more than 56,900 acres for land in Wyoming between Pathfinder Dam and Guernsey Reservoir. The provision explicitly excludes the Kendrick Project. The amendment also says an intentionally irrigated acre that receives water from more than one source will be counted only once.
Reasoning
The Court granted the joint motion and ordered the first two sentences of section 11(c) replaced with the agreed language. The ruling implements the exact acre limits and counting rule the parties proposed. In practical terms, the parties who asked for the change obtained the relief they sought because the Court adopted the amendment as written.
Real world impact
The order directly affects Wyoming irrigators, water managers, and anyone diverting water upstream of Guernsey Reservoir. It caps how much land can be intentionally irrigated in a single season in the two defined areas. It also clarifies counting when multiple water sources feed the same field and excludes the Kendrick Project from the caps. The change is an order of this Court.
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?